My Bloody Valentine Poster = Everything I Hate About 3D

Published 6 years ago by

There’s a new poster out for the remake of the 80s horror flick My Bloody Valentine. In an attempt to lure audiences back into theaters for yet another remake, this version of the movie will be in 3D.

If you’re a regular Screen Rant reader, you’ll know that I’m a big fan and supporter of the resurgence of 3D movies. However my love of the format is based on it being used in a subtle manner – bringing the audience into the film and adding visual depth to scenes.

This poster however, represents everything I hate about 3D and is exactly the sort of gimmicky approach that is fodder for those who think the format will be a flash in the pan instead of the next generation of movie viewing technology.

Specifically, I can’t stand the “pop out of the screen towards the audience” effects in movies. One of the best examples of 3D in a recent film was in Beowulf: Not the scenes where spears are poking out towards the audience, but those where we feel like we’re actually inside the great hall or at the dinner table due to the additional depth of field in those scenes.

Another “gimmicky” 3D film was Journey to the Center of the Earth which starred family-friendly star Brendan Fraser. That one was chock full of all kinds of annoying effects. Of course the kiddies loved it.

Anyway, check out the poster for yourself…

my bloody valentine 3d poster My Bloody Valentine Poster = Everything I Hate About 3D
Poster for the remake My Bloody Valentine in 3D

I suppose that horror movies lend themselves to this sort of thing, especially those crappy ones where instead of building suspense and dread, they use bugaboos jumping into the field of view to startle viewers.

On a side note, it looks like the date will end up quite badly for the goofy guy with the hot girlfriend.

My Bloody Valentine 3D opens on January 16, 2009.


Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I agree. This is nothing like the red and blue glasses, why it’s being advertised like that obviously limited gimmick is really beyond me.

    There may still be hope when Grease, The Wizard of Oz, and The Lord of The Rings are re-released in 3D.

  2. They just need to cut this cr*p and invent the holodeck already!! LOL!

  3. No no, don’t misunderstand, the technology is still a good way to enhance a movie, it’s just not being marketed or applied in the right areas.

  4. Well, this is a cheesey movie, I doubt depth has anything to do with this movie. It fits to have corny effects in a corny movie, haha. And Journey to the Center of the Earth was meant to be a family film, so it’s supposed to ammuse kids.

    I HATED Beowulf though…

  5. Ed,

    I realize that the 3-D is a good way to enhance the film. I just was joking that the holodeck would be a MUCH better way to experience the film. Imagine BEING on the Enterprise, or seeing Spiderman swinging over your head….

  6. The trouble with a holodeck, is that volumetric-ally speaking, there’s no way you could ever fit the movie in that little room. And can you imagine running between scenes, or trying to get a glimpse of something that someone’s holding but can’t see through the crowd of holo-characters?

    There will always be a place for holodecks and interactive movies (for an early preview, see modern video games), but having the director draw your attention to specific areas or specific objects of interest will always be accomplished better with film.

    So then, there’s only a few areas where film (or a static viewpoint) can improve: 3D (depth), Heat (heat), and Smell (stink). 3D’s coming no matter what, and will be a standard far before holodecks or stinkers.

  7. Andy forget the holodeck I need a Shuttle craft with light capable drive… (No I’m not kidding)

    This film is so lame, that 3D will actually improve it. That’s if you got the time to waste on this craptacular horror film.
    (Lifes to short for films like this). 8-)

  8. IMAX Dome is capable of giving
    an immersion experience. It’s a pity
    a few Hollywood films haven’t been
    designed specifically for that technology.

  9. So far Ive never enjoyed a 3-D movie. This is clearly a gimmick that will probably generate more box-office than it would other wise for this film!

  10. @Entertainmenttodayandbeyond,,, dude I totally agree with you on 3D, its just wrong, I don’t need it,,, No thanks!!!

    Hey gotta say your site looks cool, but you make it way too hard to leave a comment…
    That’s one thing that I’ve allways loved about Screen Rant is that Vic makes it so easy, no matter what format your using,,,


  11. LOL, I love how some people act like it’s the 3D that makes this retarded movie dumb… So you’re saying that if you flatten this movie and make it 2D that it will be oscar worthy? Or you’re telling me that if they could somehow magically turn great movies like Terminator 2, Aliens, Iron Man, etc, into 3D, meaning the actual movies, not redone with new actors or anything, like if they can somehow calculate how the other eye would see the scene and add it in there to make the actual movie 3D, that somehow, magically, those great movies will become bad just because they are in 3D…

    Get it through your skulls people, most 3D movies suck because they are relying on the gimmick to sell tickets, so they skim on the film itself. It is 100% purely due to poor movie making, not the fact that it’s 3D. I would pretend to be an athlete and say it is 110%, but we all know how physically impossible it is for someone to give over 100%, lol.

    Anyway, I’ve said this so many times, and it’s an obvious fact, yes, FACT, not opinion, since how many dimensions a picture has can not, in any way, affect the actual content of that image.

  12. Ken,

    I wrote that post and read through the comments and have NO idea where you’re getting the inference that 3D makes a bad movie better or that removing 3D from a movie makes it better.

    NO one has said anything of the sort, so what’s your beef?

    All I said is that I think used in a subtle way, 3D can enhance the moviegoing experience.


  13. Read comments above my post. :-)

    Not a comment on your article. Sorry for the confusion.

  14. 3-D can set the tone of a movie as much as story or character. Add, subtract, or do nothing for it. When it comes to making movies no decision is unimportant. When all the elements are
    finally pulled together films can actually have a life of their own regardless of the intent of the individual participants.
    That life can be disastrous, sublime, or magnificent. If an enacted style is set into a movie that is wrong for it or overused it will detract rather than add to the whole.

    Consider that in the “Dark Knight” we have an instance where a body drops down at us hanged, dangling from the high rise, camera focusing on the body thru the window. The grisly scene, where the copy cat batman has been used by the Joker to terrorize and work his opponents, and make the audience jump. Cheap gimmick or ratcheting effect? If this movie had been 3-D and in the hands
    of a lesser talent, the temptation might be enacted upon to use it again and again. Which people would see as a mistake, an abuse of the style to
    force the tone. I think that’s what Vic is talking about. It must serve
    the story first and foremost, the fact that it made the audience jump, was
    just a bonus. Subtle synergism can’t be denied either. If it subtracts from
    the overall work then it was unnecessary. Consider the episode of the
    “Simpson’s” where Homer slips from the 2-Dimensional world into the world
    of 3-D behind the book case. Would that scene been as effective in continuous
    2-dimensions. Then they take it a step further into mixed 3-d animation
    with live action. A subtle fourth dimensional effect can even be inferred by the era that the action is dressed, that he falls into. Would that story been
    tellable and as effective without the 3-D/live action effects?