You can classify almost all trade news posts into the categories of good, bad, and ugly. The good ones are rare, and usually exist merely to get our hopes up for a sucker punch later. The bad ones appear constantly and generally involve the fact that romantic comedy even exists as a genre or more generally that: [insert moron] who made [insert travesty of film] is now making either [film that sounds stupid] or [film that sounded great until you mentioned that moron]. The ugly ones are the trade posts about films being made in 3D. This largely overlaps with the “bad” category in terms of which films are being talked about, but varies in the nuance of subject matter.
Here are a few posts from the various sundry news sites from the last couple of days:
Hell, the LA Times even got into the mix and wrote not one, but three entire articles on the same day called “Popularity of 3-D is affecting how screenplays are written” (source: LA Times), “3-D: Hollywood’s Latest Hot Trend” (source: LA Times), and “Will 3-D summer releases pop out or fall flat?” (source: LA Times). And all this only 3 days after they published “3-D gets a C-minus” (source: LA Times). Maybe they wouldn’t have to lay off so many people if they didn’t have all their reporters writing the same story every day. Just a thought.
Would you raise an eyebrow if every bit of film news felt a need to tell you in the title of the article if the director had decided to use a shakycam? This is all an elaborate way of giving official notice that I do not consider the fucking type of camera being used a unique and precious snowflake of newsworthy information.