TF Issue 197: Is It Just Me? Stop moaning about 3D...

[Lizhawkins]

On page 145 of TF issue 197, Hugh Langley asks:

"Is it just me... or should people stop moaning about 3D?"



Here are a few excerpts:

Like Coldplay, Twilight and Simon Cowell, 3D has truly earned itself a place on the ‘cool to hate’ list. Just go online and search the words ‘3D’ and ‘crap’ – it’s clear that if the jury went out after James Cameron’s Avatar rebooted the 3D machine, it returned with a resounding “No thanks, this sucks.”

True, the last few years have seen their fair share of stereoscopic offenders. But for every Piranha 3D, there’s been a Prometheus; for every Clash Of The Titans, a Toy Story 3. Donning a pair of 3D specs has transformed these films from being merely sumptuous pictures into rich, tangible worlds that we’re not just peering at, but part of. OK, so there will always be films in which 3D is used in a gimmicky way to send objects whizzing out of the screen into the audience’s laps. But the ‘gimmick’ has grown up; we’ve reached a point where 3D set-ups can be skillfully composed for depth and realism. And yet it’s still dismissed by cinemagoers like an unloved child...


...

...But he’s hardly the only one pushing the agenda. Scorsese, Spielberg, Ridley Scott… one by one, the big names are pledging the future to 3D, which surely tells you something. Hell, Hugo would’ve had half the impact if it hadn’t been stereoscopic; the fact that Marty chose to present his ode to cinema in 3D spoke volumes about its future.

But never mind tomorrow: 3D is what cinema needs right now. At a time when piracy and on-demand services are threatening the art of quality cinemagoing, 3D is putting bums on seats. Not to mention that it’s given a new generation a chance to see classics revived on the big screen, and for others to relive them from a whole new perspective. For me, that’s worth the ticket price alone. The sooner we accept that progress is good, the better. The future of cinema belongs to 3D and its champions, and that can only be a good thing. Or is it just me?

Check out the full article in Issue 197 - on sale 3 August 2012.

Agree? Disagree? Have your say below - a selection will be printed in the next issue...

[DASHONFIRE]

Completely agree, I for one really like 3D. There is always going to be a choice, if you don't like 3D then don't watch it in 3D simple. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people don't like it.

[abu604]

I also mostly agree. I think 3D has a place both for adding depth to serious films and "fun" to films like Final Destination 3D and the aforementioned Piranha 3D.

Personally I have got myself a pretty nice home cinema setup so I'm quite selective about what I choose to fork out for at the cinema. I don't however have a 3D TV so it is one reason to see some films in the cinema.

What bothers me is the cynical pricing of tickets for 3D films. 3D should be a tool to entice people from their living rooms and into the cinema. Obviously there is some additional cost in producing and displaying 3D films but the size of the additional charge on already expensive cinema tickets strikes me as simply greedy and exactly the sort of heavy handed approach that drives people to piracy.

[Zippykins1]

Its fine as long as there is a choice between 2D and 3D. If cinemas start choosing to only show things in 3D then damn right I'll moan about it!

[Parkie]

3D is a useful technique when done well and used for the right reasons, just as any cinematic convention such as the BCU or contra-zoom. If used the right way these techniques add to the experience - if not they can stick out like a sore thumb.

3D is also the industry's new toy and there is a danger that many films that do not want or need the 3D treatment will get a stereoscopic makeover just to be up with the "in-crowd" of films. Personally I find many 3D films to be very headache-inducing, but if they are done well (Prometheus, Avatar, Toy Story 3) then I can risk the pain for the augmented experience.

3D isn't quite there yet - but it's certainly on it's way and more directors and cinematographers are learning how to work within it's confines and toolsets... all we need to do is educate the Producers and Film Execs so that they know when to use 3D and when to just leave well alone (Avengers - yes, I'm talking to you)

[dolphin14]

I suffer quite badly from Motion Sickness when watching a 3D film, The only film that i have seen that is worth watching in 3d was Avatar. I generally try the 2d version , but they are spoilt by silly 3D effects such as in Spider man, I do have a 3D tv but don't use it for that . Take away the need for glasses and make some quality 3d films and i may still watch, even with the sickness. Generally though they are a big waste of time.

[prawnkus]

The new generation 3D is magnificent - from 'Avatar', to 'Hugo', to Jackson's 'THe Hobbit' - a 3D film is a visual feast for the senses. I don't understand the hatred generated by the medium - just go and see the film in 2D. I find I see more in 3D. Being able to look within the frame adds a visual and psychological texture that 2D just cannot generate. But I've always been a 3D nutter, even back in the early '80's when I was at university, I majored in Photography - and yes, all my work was in 3D...

[Dystonym]

3D doesn't, and never has, worked for me. I have a lazy eye (not one that you can see) which means that it simply cannot work for me. When 3D is in a state where a significant portion of the population cannot watch it, I think it is unfair to simply "stop whining" about it. Without whining about it, it will never improve and without it improving, a pretty big chunk of people are locked out from enjoying it.

I have literally now idea how good 3D as, because as I say it has never worked for me, but I just feel like if we stop complaining, they will assume that it is fine and not try to fix it. I don't even know if it is scientifically possible to have one eyed 3D, but I'd really like them to at least try.

This whole thing aside, it seems like releasing every god damn film in 3D is ruining my film going experience. I rarely go to the cinema with friends anymore because they all want to see their films in glorious 3D which simply would not work for me.

[FBJHoughton]

I agree with dystonym on this.

3D is soooo pretty. I do think its a valid film-making tool and in some films its been remarkably effective. The problem with 3D isn't 3D - its all the other problems that come with it.

I, and many of my friends, get headaches when we watch 3D films. Also, without my regular glasses on the screen is blurry, but not all cinemas supply 3D glasses that I can fit my everyday glasses underneath.What's the point in watching a film in 3DHD when it's blurry anyway? I don't really mind, I just go to see the 2D version when I can, but that's the other problem.

Cinemas are taking up 2 screens instead of 1 by providing the 2D alternative. This means they can't provide as much variety. I wanted to see Submarine and Underworld Awakening, but both were ousted from my local cinema because they were projecting two of everything and didn't have space.

3D can be great, but they really need to sort out the issues properly before they force it on us.

[SirCabbage]

I had a number of problems with this article.

Let's start with this hash of a sentence: "for every Piranha 3D, there's been a Prometheus; for every Clash Of The Titans a Toy Story 3". That is simply ridiculous. All that was proved there was that two terrible contractually obligated films, REGARDLESS of their format, were worse than two excellent films that did extremely well in BOTH 2D and 3D.

In the next breath 3D is being compared to the onset of technicolor. That's like comparing the Xbox 360 and Kinect. One provided a platform, if you'll excuse the pun, from which completely new and diverse titles could be produced. The other was made in order to squeeze a few extra bucks out of the consumer. It was totally limited in its application and it was shit.

The point about classics being revived on the main screen with the added 3D is also ridiculous. Films are constantly being re-released in cinemas for a number of reasons, whether it be due to that film's anniversary, or due to a relevant current event (Chariots of Fire, for example, was recently re-released to coincide with the London Olympics). Therefore, to say that 3D is giving a new generation the chance to see old classics at the cinema is a huge overstatement of the utility and power it holds.

As for 3D itself and my beliefs, I can only say that, whilst I know very little about the technicalities (something the writer and I seem to have in common), 3D hasn't increased my enjoyment of any film it's been used in, but rather it's significantly decreased my wallet size.

p.s. Ridley Scott seems pretty undecided about whether 3D really is synonymous with progress (see for yourselves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD0201NqjA8&t=8m0s).