Why The Green Hornet Might Sting Your Eyes

Well, The Green Hornet opens tonight, and it's the first movie I've wanted to see in the theater (as opposed to saving my money and waiting for the DVD to arrive at my local library) since...um...TRON: Legacy. Alright, new qualification: It's the first movie I've wanted to see in the theater since Inception that caught my eye simply because it looks good.

In an age of prequels, sequels, and remakes, it's refreshing to go to the movies to watch something with no ties to anything, except for the part where it's based on a comic book. Even so, I've never been exposed to The Green Hornet comics, so I'm coming at this from the perspective of a guy who's just out to see a fun movie.

The only problem? It's in 3-D.

For a movie like Avatar, with its BLUE ALIENS and STUNNING VISTAS, 3-D makes perfect sense--every second of the film is intended to be an eye-popping visual feast. You lose something if you don't watch THE GREATEST ADVENTURE OF ALL TIME in 3-D. The Green Hornet, though?

Or Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides?

Or The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?

Or A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey?

Or Kung Fu Panda 2?

Or Mars Needs Moms?

It just occurred to me how much of this is Disney's fault. Still, I hear talk of 3-D televisions and the 3-D-capable evolution of the Nintendo DS, and I see no end to this 3-D craze. Which is baffling, considering how NO ONE likes 3-D.

Perhaps it's just the people I hang out with, but--without exception (except for this one friend)--the reaction is always the same: No matter how enthusiastic someone is about seeing a film, the instant they discover it's showing in 3-D, their excitement deflates, and there's often a pouty face or listless dejection that follows. I'm feeling the same way about The Green Hornet--I want to leave the house for a few hours, leave my wallet at the concession stand, and enjoy a movie that promises to be stupid amounts of fun, with nothing else for me to compare it against or expect it to be.

Plain. Old. Fun.

Yet it's in 3-D. My eyes begin to suffer about halfway through any 3-D film, and I ultimately shift the 3-D glasses around on my face until they're in an awkward position where the strain isn't so bad, but the very top of the screen is obscured by the frame of the glasses. Oh, and let's not forget the practical part--Disney (or whomever) is charging me $5 or $10 more for something I don't want at all, and probably won't enhance my viewing experience enough to make up for the extra hassle and expense.

Let me put this in another perspective: When I go out to a restaurant, I'm not forced to wear a tight helmet that makes my jaw ache as I chew (and have them charge me extra to wear it). I don't order take-out so I can eat restaurant food--which gets cold by the time I get home--without needing to deal with the aforementioned Meal Helmet.

As I said, there are movies such as Avatar, that truly need 3-D. Captain EO is a regular Meal Helmet convention--it simply doesn't work if you remove the key ingredient. It was fun enough to see the effects-heavy TRON: Legacy in 3-D, but as my girlfriend pointed out, the 3-D commercial before the film, which had water spraying all over the place, was the best part of the 3-D experience.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but in a different context: Don't implement motion controls unless your video game absolutely requires them. Don't reboot a franchise unless there are no more stories to be told. Don't put your movie in 3-D unless you positively need to poke your audience in the eye.