I am not a fan of the original “Fright Night” released in 1985. The concept was neat and I loved Roddy McDowall's portrayal of the has been actor Peter Vincent, but generally, it didn't do much for me. So a remake of this movie isn't something that exactly calls to me. What does call to me, however, is the chance to see David Tennant on the big screen in the revamped role of Peter Vincent. In this movie, the character of Peter Vincent isn't a has-been actor but rather a hack Las Vegas magician, though probably just on the cusp of has-beenness. Might be pretty fun to see what he does with the role.
But I will not go to see it in 3D. Hollywood has been having a love affair with 3D that frankly puzzles me. A few years ago I saw “Journey to the Center of the Earth” in 3D (because it was the only version out by the time I got the chance to see it) and $9 is already pretty pricey to see a movie. I don't really want to pay $3 extra to wear a set of glasses that a line of greasy kids wore before me, and sit through two hours of glaucoma vision just for the sensation that a rock being thrown towards the camera is heading straight for my head. I can get that sensation walking down the street, (but that's a topic for another post). Perhaps I'm fairly easily amused, but when I go to see a movie, I'm more concerned with crazy things like acting, directing, plot. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I like special effects. I just like to be able to see them clearly. That’s why I was so irritated when I went searching for movie times for a 2D version of “Fright Night” and discovered that the only showing available this week at one of the few conveniently located theaters (i.e. theaters located on the road that takes me from one job to the other and then home) was at 1:25 p.m. The 3D version, however, had several versions to choose from at this particular theater while at other nearby theaters, 3D was the only version playing.
Why would the studio limit an audience to a movie like that? As appealing as I might find David Tennant, unless he’s in a porno movie, I’m not going to see a 3D version of a movie he’s in (l like my Tennant crystal clear) so they've lost out on a sale with me. Oh sure, $9 is a drop in the bucket but I can't be the only one who refuses to see a movie in 3D. Enough people deciding against seeing a move in 3D would have to eat into the profits slightly. You’d think wider releases of both versions would lead to a big box office take. Why would they schedule the 2D version in such extremely limited release?
Yet 3D seems to be the wave of the future. They’re even going back and 3D-afying older movies like “The Lion King.” Kind of like higher-tech colorization. The 3D craze, however, puts me in mind of that wonderful sketch from the SCTV universe "Dr. Tongue's Evil House of Pancakes” as featured on the low budget "Monster Chiller Horror Theater" hosted by Count Floyd. When it comes to sitting through 3D, parody of it is as far as I want to go.
But I will not go to see it in 3D. Hollywood has been having a love affair with 3D that frankly puzzles me. A few years ago I saw “Journey to the Center of the Earth” in 3D (because it was the only version out by the time I got the chance to see it) and $9 is already pretty pricey to see a movie. I don't really want to pay $3 extra to wear a set of glasses that a line of greasy kids wore before me, and sit through two hours of glaucoma vision just for the sensation that a rock being thrown towards the camera is heading straight for my head. I can get that sensation walking down the street, (but that's a topic for another post). Perhaps I'm fairly easily amused, but when I go to see a movie, I'm more concerned with crazy things like acting, directing, plot. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I like special effects. I just like to be able to see them clearly. That’s why I was so irritated when I went searching for movie times for a 2D version of “Fright Night” and discovered that the only showing available this week at one of the few conveniently located theaters (i.e. theaters located on the road that takes me from one job to the other and then home) was at 1:25 p.m. The 3D version, however, had several versions to choose from at this particular theater while at other nearby theaters, 3D was the only version playing.
Why would the studio limit an audience to a movie like that? As appealing as I might find David Tennant, unless he’s in a porno movie, I’m not going to see a 3D version of a movie he’s in (l like my Tennant crystal clear) so they've lost out on a sale with me. Oh sure, $9 is a drop in the bucket but I can't be the only one who refuses to see a movie in 3D. Enough people deciding against seeing a move in 3D would have to eat into the profits slightly. You’d think wider releases of both versions would lead to a big box office take. Why would they schedule the 2D version in such extremely limited release?
No comments:
Post a Comment