Monday, August 16, 2010

3D is Destroying Cinema Poster Art Work!

I generally don't have a problem with 3D. Truly. I think I'm smart enough to know when I'm being suckered in (Clash of the Titans, which I did not see) and when I'm not (Avatar, duh). As long as I am not being forced to spend $20 on a 3D ticket to a movie I don't want to see - please note, I saw Step Up 3D voluntarily and would gladly pay to see Piranha 3D if necessary - then who am I to deny Hollywood the right to make money off of suckers? In fact, the most egregious case of feeling ripped off that I have had was Toy Story 3. That movie did not need to be seen in 3D, sorry Pixar. After Up and Toy Story 3 I think I will be doing my very best to see your movies in 2D.

Nevertheless, 3D is indeed everywhere and if people are going to see 3D movies then people are going to see 3D movies and no amount of Roger Eberts or Alice in Wonderlands can change that. However, even I admit that I get a little deflated every time I see "in 3D!" tacked on to the end of a movie trailer (hello there Green Hornet) and movie posters. Take a look at these two posters for upcoming horror movies and tell me they wouldn't be improved by removing that ugly text proclaiming them as being in 3D? Just try and tell me!

The first is the poster for Wes Craven's My Soul to Take. Now I actually really like this poster and I think the central visual motif is really captivating and pleasing to the (horror-watching) eye. It reminds me of that John Cusack horror movie that I can't remember the title of, but the poster was of a hand print and the fingers were made of ghostly figures. Remember the artwork, not the title, well done to me!


Of course, the tagline mentions Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street (a film that has a similar plot to My Soul to Take from the sounds of it) and Last House of the Left (yet curiously leaves off Scream?) yet still makes it seem like the only reason this film was made was because it's "in 3D". This movie was not made in 3D it was made in "2D" (what a stupid term how about "projected in 2D"?) and converted in post-production. So we'll be skipping the 3D version of this film, then, yes?

The next movie poster is for The Gate, which is another horror title that I was unaware was receiving the remake treatment, and while I like the poster I think that's only really because it is a near exact replica of the poster for the 1987 original. The 1987 original that starred a young Stephen Dorff, by the way.


In the grand scheme of things remaking The Gate makes more sense than many other remakes that have come down the pipe in the last decade. Will people even know this is a remake? I'm not sure, so it's hardly like they're remaking a classic of the ages. It's the only reasoning I can come up for keeping the original poster almost inch for inch. Of course, the hand "comin' atcha" (like Cleopatra) would be enough to allude to the 3D nature of the film, but no they had to go and plaster a grotesque "OPENING IN 3D" banner over it like a beauty queen's sash.

Won't somebody think of the people who love movie posters?!?


Joel said...

I believe the John Cusack film is the hilarious Identity?
I really hope My Soul to Take is good, more Scream than Cursed...

Simon said...

I hope someone makes a movie named 3D, but it's in 2D. Or something.