The Parthenon

Three cheers for 2-D: ‘Interstellar’ breaks the mold, for the better

Taylor Stuck, Managing Editor

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Let me preface this by saying if you haven’t seen “Interstellar” yet, you need to. Make that your Saturday night or Sunday plan. It is a must. Also, there aren’t any spoilers in this. I’m not that girl.

I saw “Interstellar” Sunday with my boyfriend. Walking up to the theater, my boyfriend told me to get tickets for the 3-D showing if it was available. To our surprise, it was not showing in 3-D. We both just assumed a movie – a space movie, no less – would be shown in 3-D, the new trend in movies. Last year’s award-winning space movie “Gravity” is just one example.

I was surprised, but thankful.

I hate 3-D movies. The first one I saw was “Coraline” in 2009. I went with a friend and I remember being super excited. I had high hopes for the 3-D picture. I wanted to be immersed into the world Coraline discovers. I left the theater with a few cheap thrills (the needle coming at me) and $11 poorer. I was looking for IMAX in a regular theater, and you just can’t do that.

It’s been around for a while. I can remember seeing 3-D movies while at Disney World (maybe why I am so underwhelmed by regular 3-D movies). As the technology got cheaper, it got easier for theaters to show 3-D movies, hence studios started making them more.

The issue is directors and producers aren’t making 3-D films. It feels contrived. It feels like the movie is made, then they sit back and decide how to put 3-D effects in the movie.

If I am paying $12 for a movie, the effects better enhance my viewing experience, not distract. But distract they do. You have these silly glasses, for one. If you are like me, you aren’t used to wearing glasses and you can see the rim the entire movie. Or, if you wear glasses, you then have to struggle with wearing them over your glasses or trying to figure out a way to see. Then the actual effects themselves either come at you, shocking you, or they are just flat. I don’t understand how something designed to make things pop makes it flatter, but it does.

Christopher Nolan, director of “Interstellar,” said during a CinemaCon lunch in his honor he shot more on IMAX cameras than ever before, but although he’s in favor of new technologies, he’s hesitant to adapt or use anything before it’s time tested. In regards to 3-D, Nolan praised Baz Luhrman for “The Great Gatsby,” but said as far as the technology, “Just as stadium seating isn’t the best thing a comedy, 3-D isn’t the best for a shared audience,” according to a Variety article.

If the masterpiece that is “Interstellar” were in 3-D, it would have taken away from the beauty of the film. The combination of cinematography and music was enough to move me to tears multiple times. I didn’t need to be drawn into the movie with 3-D. It took me there itself.

My hope is we are over the fad of 3-D movies and we start to move on. Let’s just accept the fact it doesn’t work. “Interstellar” is proof it’s not needed.

Taylor Stuck can be contacted at [email protected]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Comment

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.