Dinoshark: 3D?


If there’s one thing scarier than a Tyrannosaurus Rex, it’s a big-ass shark with the head of a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Syfy, the sworn enemy of televangelism and my favorite source of dramatic reenactments of shark-related science experiments gone wrong, brought us Dinoshark in 2010 and the world hasn’t been the same since.  Not since Spielberg’s original Jaws has a small town been so terrorized by a nasty-flippered sonofabitch fish with too many teeth.

What is it, then, that bores me so much in the trailers?  I know it’s a shark.  I know it’s a dinosaur.  So where is my desire to see this film?  Why don’t I care?

This week I realized the answer.  Because it’s in 2D, that’s why.  If this film were in 3D, the threat of massive man-eating shark jaws suddenly becomes my problem, and not solely the worry of some small town in Mexico that I’ve never even vacationed in.  In 3D, my head could be eaten by an ancient sea predator literally jumping out of the screen and snacking on my tasty flesh.  Because the difference between 2D and 3D is a little thing called actual reality.  Adrenaline rush, kids.

I guess we can only hope that by the time they get around to the sequel, which I have tentatively titled “Dinoshark 2: James Cameron” (you’re welcome, Syfy), 3D home televisions will be so commonplace that to film in 2D would be completely incomprehensible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *