3D – The future of cinema or just a big con?

With James Cameron’s Avatar hailed as ‘the future of cinema’, studios and film-makers alike have been quick to jump on the bandwagon. The current revolution in cinema technology is, of course, 3D: Disney and Pixar love it – in fact, the studio has announced plans to release all forthcoming films in digital 3D - and films such as The Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine enjoyed the kind of box-office success that horror sequels and remakes rarely see, all thanks to the novelty of watching characters being killed off in 3D.

Some films such as Clash of the Titans and the new Harry Potter have even had scenes refitted in 3D in order to cash in on the new trend – in the case of Titans, after shooting had already wrapped. And this is where my problem with Hollywood’s new obsession comes from: is it just me, or are 3D movies a great big rip-off?  How convenient for studios that we have to shell out an additional few quid for the privilege of having characters or objects occasionally thrust in our faces? Everyone was going to go and see Harry Potter anyway, but now we have to spend more to do so. Ok, so the extra dimension may elicit a few ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ to begin with (I’ll admit, seeing that pickaxe come flying out of the screen during My Bloody Valentine did make me duck), but it quickly becomes tedious and, let’s face it, those glasses are a nuisance. Yes, 3D technology is very impressive when done right, but surely if a film is good, it doesn’t need the technical trickery to distract from the story.  Films such as Up connect because of a brilliant plot and adorable characters – I have this film on DVD and it is every bit as good on the small screen as when I saw it at the cinema in 3D. And it cost about the same.

Even Avatar, without the 3D, is just Fern Gully for grown-ups: it’s no surprise that the Oscars it won were for visual effects and cinematography, rather than for acting or screenplay. Now, before people accuse me of missing the point, I realise that Avatar was always meant for 3D: Cameron spent 14 years of his life waiting for technology to catch up so that he could realise his vision of Pandora, and there’s no denying that the result is a stunning visual achievement. But nobody else is putting that kind of creative passion or dedication into their film-making; their motivation is purely financial. Avatar made 20^th Century Fox a whole stack of money, and so we are now being charged higher ticket prices to watch 3D versions of mediocre films so that other studios can fill their wallets.

On the other hand, 3D does restore a sense of magic to the cinema experience – something that has dissipated slightly in an era of movie downloading and pirate DVDs. But then again, with 3D TV launched in January, how long before it becomes the norm in our own living rooms? Hopefully, in a few years it will no longer be a novelty, and instead of being inundated with rubbish 3D slasher sequels, we will actually begin to see some quality projects which benefit from 3D technology.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that cinema works just fine in 2D. Maybe 3D is a gimmick best left in the 80s?

CMD