It’s no secret that I loath 3D in movies. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed “Avatar” for what it was, but that was 1 single film out of about 12 I’ve watched recently. It always goes the same way for me… about 5 minutes into a 3D film I find myself wishing I could just take the stupid glasses off and watch what I went there to watch… the movie.

No matter what anyone tries to tell you, 3D does NOT ADD anything beyond a visual gimmick to a movie. Some idiot directors have tried to claim 3D adds “emotional depth” to their films. BULLSHIT. Just flat out BULLSHIT. Look, I’m certainly not the biggest movie expert in the world, but I think it’s at least fair to say I know something about movies and I watch my fair share of them and I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that not once has 3D in a film ever added “emotional depth”. It is what it is… a visual gimmick.

And listen, “gimmicks” are not necessarily bad things. As a matter of fact gimmicks can be good things when used in moderation, at the right times and in the right places and 3D is no exception to that.

But let me get to the point of this post. I got an email today from the group over at the “3d Entertainment Summit” and head ass clown Bob Dowling (to be fair, I don’t actually know Bob Dowling and for all I know he’s probably a great and wonderful guy… but this email pissed me off so much, today he is “head ass clown”) that just insulted anyone with half a gram of common sense.

In his message today, Dowling took aim at people (like myself) who don’t like 3D in most movies and who point out its obvious shortcomings. This is what he said:

“There continues to be a baffling number of stories proclaiming 3D is a fad or a gimmick that carries with it unforeseen (and doubtless, dire) shortcomings.

Say What?

Most of these pieces, emanating from a variety of media are, for the most part, written by folks who, if not active members of the flat earth society, are fellow travelers.”

Do not ever bet against technology. And 3D is a technology, pure and simple.”

To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd: Bob you ignorant slut.

First of all I hate it when simpletons like this guy try to make it sound like their opponents are saying something they’re not. For example, Bob would like you to believe that people like me who dislike 3D in MOST movies dislike 3D because it’s some kind of scary new technology. That anyone who dislikes 3D is just a “member of the flat earth society”.

Secondly, Bob tries to make this a debate about technology, when clearly it is not. This is a debate about style and art, but he’s too clueless to get that.

Technology is good. I love tech. I’m a happy RSS subscriber and daily reader of Engadget, Gizmodo, Mashable and Lifehacker. I love new technologies THAT ARE USEFUL AND USED IN USEFUL WAYS. Take digital projection in movie theatres. Yes, the technology had its detractors, but I’ve always loved it because to me, the technology actually ADDS to the movie experience. Brilliant images, richer colors. It was (and continues to be) a great example of a wonderful technology being used in an appropriate way.

Lets be clear here. 3D is a WONDERFUL technology that should be pursued, should be developed, should be advanced… but just because all of that is true does not mean it’s necessarily a useful or appropriate for 99% of movies today.

Lasers are a very cool technology, They can do amazing things and I love them. But just because lasers are a great technology doesn’t mean I want some idiot teenager brining his laser pointer into a movie theatre where I’m watching “The Avengers” and projecting it onto the screen while the movie is going on. I’m sure if Bob Dowling was there when I complained he’d say I was just afraid of technology.

Stimulus seats (you know those seats in some theatres that will vibrate or shake a little when something is going on in a movie) are terrific pieces of technology… but when watching a movie they’re annoying as hell and just distract you from the movie watching experience (I did it once and vowed I would never do it again).

3D is a great technology and absolutely has some wonderful potential applications. 3D video games are a terrific idea for example. But when watching a movie Bab, this isn’t a matter of “technology, pure and simple”.

It is discouraging to me seeing Hollywood studios jumping like excited monkeys at the San DIego zoo over ONE (yes… ONE) movie (Avatar) getting it semi-right and making a lot of money.

3D dulls the colors of a movie, it makes me wear irritating glasses, it adds nothing to 99% of the movies it’s used in, it doesn’t make a bad story good, it doesn’t make a bad joke funny, it doesn’t make a lame car chase any more exciting, it doesn’t make a dramatic moment any more intense and it doesn’t make a love story any more emotional. It’s just distracting and irritating. That’s not an issue of technology Bob… that’s an issue of art and the proper (or improper) applications of said technologies.

There are going to be some movies where 3D is a great idea. For example… “Jack Ass 3D” is coming soon, and I honestly think that is a great kind of movie to try 3D with. Why not?

But I’m sorry Bob, 3D in most of the movies it’s used for ends up being a distraction, it kills the image on the screen, it’s irritating to wear those stupid glasses and it adds next to nothing to the film going experience for me. So you see you pompous ass clown… this isn’t about me being scared of technology, this isn’t about “technology, pure and simple”, this is about art, presentation, style and the application of technology. But I guess you’re just too dull to get that aren’t you?

Some people love 3D in movies, and that’s totally fair, nothing wrong with that… but don’t be a giant dick and tell me if I don’t it’s just because I’m scared of technology because that’s not what this discussion is about.

No one should have been naive enough to expect “Scott Pilgrim” to break any records or pull in a $50 million dollar opening weekend. After all Michael Cera is hardly a proven leading man and it was obviously a film targeted at a certain audience.

So no, the film was never going to be a HUGE box office hit. However, having said that, the sheer quality of the film (it’s amazing), those involved in the production and sheer amount of marketing the film had meant the movie could have and SHOULD have done a lot better.

As far as I’m concerned, the biggest culprit for the box office failure of the film was the botched marketing. It was so bas that even though I’m a massive Edgar Wright fan, I wasn’t at all excited about seeing it.

The commercials for the film gave us no idea about the real style of the movie, it showed none of the funniest moments (you don’t want a trailer to give away too much of the good stuff) of the movie, and gave the impression that it was some sort of artsy (I hate using that word) indie experimental project.

The vast majority of people who would write to me or comment on various posts I’d do about “Pilgrim” around the web were indifferent to disinterested in the film mainly because none of them thought it “looked” good.

And they’re right… the film didn’t look any good… at all. Even bad movies can be made to look good in trailers… and the fact that “Scott Pilgrim” is so damn good means there is simply no excuse for the marketing not to have looked a LOT better.

Look, even with the right marketing this movies wasn’t going to be a blockbuster, but it certainly would have performed much better than it did.

Trust me folks… if you haven’t seen “Pilgrim” yet, get off your ass and go see it. It’s amazing.

I even like the poster for the movie… but I’ve gotta say I MUCH prefer this older version of the poster that they ditched:

1 – Alex Billington essentially blackmailed Universal into inviting him to a special “secret” screening of Scott Pilgrim at Comic Con by threatening to announce the screening to his readers unless they capitulated. This was beyond wrong and not only makes himself look stupid, it makes the whole online film community look stupid too.

2 – A collection of well meaning and well intentioned web guys wrote a letter condemning the act, unfortunately the letter, in my opinion, was a poor idea and not well thought out. The result has been backlash against the writers of the letter and the online film community itself as much as Billington.

A few of my friends who wrote the letter in question have asked what I would have done differently. That’s a fair question to ask. If you’re going to say something wasn’t done quite right, you should be ready to offer up what the alternative is/should have been.

So for what it’s worth, here’s how I think the web community should have handled the Alex Billington/blackmail situation.

If the guys had approached me and asked my opinion on the matter back at Comic Con (and it was probably smart that they didn’t… I’m not very bright), here’s what I would have told them:

A) It has to be understood that this letter will probably get out to the public. There are too many higher profile online personalities involved for it not to be. The starting assumption should be that this letter will get out somehow.

B) To avoid the appearance of “self importance” (none of the guys involved are like this… but you have to be aware of appearance) any action must involve more than just 20. It should be an organized effort bringing in at least 50-60 individuals and websites representing large, medium and small sites from across the web.

C) The letter should be an OPEN LETTER to show full transparency, resolve and unity. Address it to the studios, but make it available to everyone to read.

D) Any such letter should not involve Devin Faraci or others who have openly disparaged and fought with Alex publicly. No matter how right their intentions are, it risks the appearance of questionable motives and makes the effort lose credibility. Another writer from CHUD (or whatever site) should sign in his/her place.

E) Draft a letter that contains the following points:
– We the undersigned…

– We recognize that professionalism and conduct are important for a relatively young medium such as ours.

– We recognize that as a young medium we have all sometimes contributed to the existing reputation and perception of our “industry”.

– We are all committed to growing and improving our “industry”.

– We firmly voice together that we do not condone the actions of Alex Billington at Comic Con. His actions in no way should be seen as a reflection of the attitude or practices of the wider online film community.

– Alex Billington’s actions and motives are his own and we cannot comment on them, however this sort of incident is one we most seriously and somberly wish to disassociate ourselves and our industry from.

– etc. etc. etc.

F) Spend the next week reaching out to and getting feedback from 50-60 websites who agree to the open letter.

G) Co-Ordinate an exact day and time that all the involved sites publish that open letter to the studios on their sites.

Personally I think if this was done, the effect would have been much more powerful, the backlash would have been much smaller (there still would have been some) and the point would have been much more effectively made.

But maybe I’m wrong… that’s been known to happen from time to time.

1) I AM NOT A JOURNALIST
A lot of blogger and web writers need to get over themselves sometimes. Just because you write on a website that gets a modest amount of readers DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A JOURNALIST. You’re not, no matter how many time you say you are, you’re not. More importantly there’s NOTHING WRONG with not being a journalist.

2) MOVIE WEB WRITERS HAVE A FRAGILE REPUTATION
The world of film blogging and writing on the web is still essentially in its infancy, and as such has a long way to go in terms of perception and legitimacy. Most people out there think of all web writers as fat virgin kids living in their parents basement with no “skills”, no ethics, no credibility and are generally perceived as jealous, insecure losers. For the most part this is all pretty unfair and unfounded, but sometimes us web guys fuel the fire with our conduct.

3) I AM NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING
Just because I started some website that ended up getting a lot of readers did not suddenly mean that movie studios OWED me things. I was not ENTITLED to set visits. I was not ENTITLED to attend press junkets. I was not ENTITLED to exclusive interviews, or advanced screening or invitations to movie premieres.

If studios recognized my work and thought I had enough influence and enough character to invite me to things, then I always saw it as a privilege and an honor, not something they owed me. I certainly never though NOT getting invited to something was a sign of “disrespect” or any kind of slap in the face.

Even now as I manage some things for AMC Theatres, I’m still aware that the studios don’t “owe” me anything. Oh sure, we’re opening their movie in 4000 of our theatres, but that doesn’t automatically mean I’m getting invited to a junket (although I do get invited to a lot more now than I did back when I ran The Movie Blog) or mean that I automatically get invited to advance screenings (although I do more times than not, but certainly not to all of them).

This brings us to Alex Billington from “First Showing.Net” and a situation he’s involved in that has the entire movie websphere looking silly (and it’s not all his fault).

Apparently at Comic Con, Alex found out about a secret advance screening of “Scott Pilgrim vs the World” that was going to be held. The problem is Alex wasn’t invited to it. According to the stories, Alex got upset and felt “disrespected” (as if he was owed an invitation). He then communicated to Universal that unless he got an invitation to the screening, he would let the public know about it, thus ruining the “secret screening”. Essentially it was blackmail.

Now it’s no secret that most guys in the online movie websphere don’t like Alex. Some actually flat out hate him. And it’s not jealousy (which is usually what Alex writes it off to). A lot of guys have had a problem with how Alex conducts himself for a long time.

For the record I actually like Alex. That’s not to say I condone some of the stuff he’s done, but who among us hasn’t done our share of stupid things? i know I certainly have. I honestly think Alex is a guy who most of the time means well, but just doesn’t think things through before acting/speaking/writing/reacting. I’ll take that kind of a guy over someone who knows full well they’re being an asshole and does it anyway. But still, he has on occasion ended up doing some stuff that have pissed a lot of guys off.

I remember this one time Jen Yamato and I were on a set visit and our inboxes started filling up with a lot of chatter. Alex had done something that pissed everyone off and every web guy out there was jumping on the “let’s hate Alex Billington” bandwagon. Yes, Alex had done something ill-advised, but at the same time it was hardly something worthy of 30 guys jumping all over him. I started making some calls and writing to a few guys to try to calm the situation down… some guys listened… some guys got pissed off at me. The funny thing is later that day I was talking to Alex online and he ended up getting really pissed at me because I was trying to help him understand why some of things he does gets guys upset. I guess he didn’t want to hear it.

Anyway… back to the situation at hand…

Alex “blackmailing” Universal studios was a stupid thing to do, no ifs ands or buts about it. It not only makes him look foolish, it makes the whole field of movie blogging and online film writing look foolish as well.

But the situation was made even worse by a group of web writers (including a few guys I really do like and respect a lot) who decided to take it upon themselves to write a letter to Universal to complain about the Alex. This was extremely ill-advised.

All one has to do is look around the web to see what the response to this story has been. A lot of people are turning against the guys who wrote the letter. Why? Because according to some comments:

“Billington’s conduct was reprehensible, but writing the letter makes the bloggers look like a pack of jealous teenagers.”

“Man, I do enjoy watching these zit faces virgin insider wannabes slap each other around like pussies for us all to see. It reminds me of why I don’t read any other their sites.”

“And you know what? If Alex Billington had a problem with Universal, isn’t that his business, not McWeeny and pals business? Why do they have to try and sabotage his relationship with other studios? This thing makes McWeeny and Faraci and Knowles look like a pack of bullies. This letter is unprofessional and it’s also bad publicity for Scott Pilgrim. Does Universal really want it’s movie associated with this sort of petty vendetta by people pretending to be ass kissing supporters of the movie? I bet they don’t really appreciate this negative attempt to brownnose.”

“And these are the people so many read? It’s like we’re living in ‘Idiocracy’.”

“I love the moral highground these guys claim, I work at a studio and Drew and Devin are the worst bullies on the block. This is such bullshit, all the way around. These clowns don’t deserve the access they think they are entitled to and unfortunately get.”

“This is nasty. It’s McWeeny and pals trying to say “Look at us, we are so wonderful, we would NEVER push our way into a screening”"

What Alex did made our community look foolish… but writing that letter made our community look even worse (or maybe I’m just jealous that these guys didn’t ask me to sign the letter too?).

Let’s be clear here. The guys who wrote that letter are not stupid. They’re very talented guys who probably thought they were attempting to stop an injustice. They had every right to be upset by Alex’s actions and probably thought they were doing the “right thing”. I just think they should have stopped for a moment to consider how writing such a letter would be perceived by the general public. (As an amendment, let me make it clear that I don’t think the letter was MEANT to be public, but for several reasons, not the least of which was the failure to consider the possibility that the letter COULD become public, the letter was a bad idea).

If we all want more people engaging with the online film fan community (ie. our websites) we have to start working hard on changing the negative perception a lot of people have of us. We have to get rid of this sense of entitlement we seem to collectively have (I still have it sometimes… guilty), we have to stop thinking we’re bigger or more important than we are. We have to stop making all our squabbles public.

That doesn’t mean we all have to like each other or all of us have to get along (although I really wish we would… i love hanging out with web guys), but we should start to look beyond ourselves.

Guys like Drew and Devin and that whole crew are far too talented to only be read by the number of people who do. There is so much talent in the online movie world right now that deserves a bigger readership and a much better reputation and perception. But like anything else, we’d better start to recognize that sort of reputation and perception are things we collectively need to work hard for. And situations like this just hurt us.

Just my random thoughts for a Thursday evening. Ok, off to get ready for “The Other Guys” tonight. Have a good one.

(In response to some people asking me how I think the situation should have been dealt with, I wrote this new post)

With that being said, I can accept that some people find “Meet the Spartans” funny even though I didn’t (and I think they’re crazy). I can accept that some people thought the story of “Avatar” was really good even when I didn’t, and we can debate the merits thereof.

But one of the things I don’t accept is when someone tries to use the INTENT of the filmmakers as an argument for a movie’s quality. That somehow, what a director was “going for” can be seen as a replacement for actual results.

I don’t care if a director was trying to show the struggle of single mothers living in a male dominated society making it almost impossible to move ahead while caring for their families at the same time. Yes, that’s a noble subject matter to tackle. Yes, that’s a great starting point… but it doesn’t negate the fact that the movie was slow, had bad dialog, terrible characters and no emotional triggers. No matter what the director was TRYING TO SAY with his/her movie, they still didn’t say it well, and it’s a bad movie.

This always frustrates me when people I’m talking with try to portray a films weakness as if it were a strength. Like “Meet the Spartans”. The film was just pure stupidity in its most undiluted form. Yet some people have argued with me that since “stupidity” is what the director was going for, it should be seen as a success. WHAT?!?!?!

Here’s an Olympic analogy I like to use:

Picture this scene. It’s the Olympic games in China and we’re at the diving competition. A German diver stands majestically at the base of the diving board as cameras flash around him in a dance of light like an indoors arora borealis. The crowd starts to quite down and the flashes die off. The arena is now calm and quite and the German diver extends up onto his toes, bounces, and then quickly strides up the diving board… gives one giant bounce… flies up into the air…. and then when in the air he inexplicably starts flailing around like an injured bird with his arms and legs kicking everywhere and eventually comes crashing down onto the water in a smaking belly flop. The majestic diver looked more like an 8 year old fat kid making his very first jump off a board than a world class olympic diver and the results were horrible. The judges show their scores that average out to be about 0.5 out of 10. The German finishes in last place.

The German diver and his coach angrily run up to the judges podium and protest! “Why did you give me such a low score?” the German demands. “Because your dive was terrible with no form, no grace, no technique and it all resulted in a terrible belly flop. That’s why.” respond the judges. “But…” the German shoots back at them, “That’s exactly what I was TRYING to do. That’s what I was going for!”

So the question is… since a horrible, graceless, ugly and awful dive is exactly what the diver was going for… should the judges re-evaluate their scores and give him a 10? Or should the judges stick with their score because regardless of intent, a bad dive is a bad dive and should be scored as such?

To me, the answer to that question is obvious. If a dive was ugly and awful to watch with little to no merit to it, then regardless of intent, it was still an ugly, awful to watch dive with little to no merit. Period.

Even today some people defend the film “Step Up 3D”. Because I believe all film is subjective I can completely accept if someone found the story solid even when I did not. I can accept someone finding the characters interesting even when I did not. I can accept someone thinking the movie is “good” while I think it’s a steaming pile of shit. That’s all totally fair…. but the funny thing is that most of the people who defend this movie aren’t actually claiming it’s any good. They’re just saying the dancing is great.

The Motocross in “Supercross” was great too… does that mean it was a good movie? No.

Here’s another analogy. Let’s say you have a movie with some of the worst acting in history, a terrible script, no pace, and we’re pretty sure the camera was out of focus half the time. BUT… the movie was about a young girl trying to make it in New York in the fashion industry, and the clothes in the film were some of the best designed clothes you’ve ever seen! Is it ok to give the movie a passing grade just because the director was trying to make a movie about fashion and the fashion in the film was great? NO!!!!! The movie still sucked no matter how good the clothes in it were.

Again, I have no problem with someone disagreeing over the quality of a movie. I just hate it when “but that’s what they were going for” is used an excuse.

/RANT.

I better explain my thoughts in the video below:

As always, this is just my opinion. If you watch the whole video, let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Well… I decided to do a video blog to lay out my thoughts. Check it out here:

What do you think?

I did this video for AMC Entertainment earlier today and thought I’d share it here. Let me know what you think of it: