Saturday
24Oct2009
'Scream 4' Could Employ Unnecessary 3-D Gimmick
Saturday, October 24, 2009 at 12:56AM
I don't know where the line is for the 3-D fixation going to far, but I'm fairly certain we've passed it. Some devotees of the technology might argue with me, but this isn't color film or sound we're talking about; it's not a change that, at present, marks some bold new direction for movies. Perhaps James Cameron will change that with Avatar and perhaps he won't. It seems like the other studios are gearing up for audience expectations that may not be there.

Take, for example, the fourth Scream movie. I would submit to you that even horror fans might say there's no pressing need for such a film in the first place, much less in 3-D. Readers of the Big Picture could argue right back that I thought My Bloody Valentine was great fun and great 3-D. I have no comeback other than to say that Valentine did it first, so obviously it's gimmickry at least seems somehow more bold than Final Destination or the planned and paused Halloween III or this sequel or some of the others headed our way. It didn't hurt that the movie was good dumb fun regardless of special glasses.
Like anything else in a movie, you would ideally want the 3-D to be needed and not just tacked on to join the trend. In fact, most movies that have added 3-D after the fact - even great ones like Up - seldom see much of a change going from traditional 2-D to 3-D. In this case, I suppose Wes Craven, the series figurehead Bloody-Disgusting says is "closer than ever" to returning, might want to play with the new technology, but it sure feels like a stunt. Not that a sequel ten years after the fact doesn't.
That's the other thing: If it is a stunt, shouldn't it attract audiences? I mean, isn't that the point? So far, we haven't seen that 3-D is a reliable audience grabber. Do you really think Monsters vs. Aliens wouldn't have made a ton of money as a 2-D film? Avatar will be a big test about the commercial viability of 3-D, because most of the blockbusters marketed with the technology in mind so far would have been marketed aggressively, anyway. But Cameron's film is generating curiosity if not excitement about where the bar might be raised. So again, I think a lot of this planning for 3-D is a by-production of expecting big things out of that film.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think anyone would walk out of Avatar thinking anything along the lines of, "You know what could really use 3-D? A Scream movie."

Colin Boyd |
Permalink | in
3D,
Horror Movies,
Scream,
Wes Craven |
Print Article |
Email Article |
2 Comments | 











Reader Comments (2)
i know people aren't "no pun intended" screaming for a scream movie but no one was dying for a my bloody valentine remake... i think when things get going some excitement will build... it's still a fun well thought of series of films... particularly the first one... i think people will be excited for it but only if it's good... not like years ago when they could get away with a mediocre one... the excitement was naturally still there... they really have to work at it now. but if good, then it will sell really well... and it would help if craven was involved. as for the 3d... meh... you have a good point that it will scream of gimmick that it doesn't need since doing a 4th one is gimmick enough.
Didn't they do 3D back in the 80's? It was gimmicky then. I don't see why it wouldn't be now, even with better technology.
I think that it has it's place in sci-fi movies where part of what you're paying to see is the world they're creating, and I can see it being cool in horror movies where it would be another avenue to get people to jump out of their seats.
A lot of movies don't need it, though.