iPlayer Radio What's New?

3D - Dead Or Alive? Your Responses

Tuesday 2 October 2012, 11:52

Mark Kermode Mark Kermode

I said recently saying that I thought 3D was half-dead - here are some of your reactions to that post.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit Mark's blog to view the video.

Related Posts on Kermode Uncut
3D Alive or Dead?
Come in Number 3D, your time is up

Mark's reviews on 5 live
Latest reviews

Hear Mark Kermode review the week's new films every Friday from 2pm on BBC Radio 5 live. Kermode & Mayo's Film Review is also available as a free podcast to download and keep.

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 1.

    Blinkin' 'eck! "I'm right, and you're often righter." Where did Mark "Humble" Kermode come from?!

    Anyway, love the idea of taking action on distributors with the argument of discriminating against less-than-perfectly-sighted customers. Maybe in a less bullish fashion than a court proceeding though - Dr. K could start a petition, get a press release out, harness social media. It could generate a lot of buzz and, who knows, might even make a difference!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 2.

    I agree with MarkoosMuse. I was a fan of 3D when "Avatar" came out, and think that some animations likes "Up" and "Toy Story 3", as well as "Hugo", did something interesting with the format. But the more 3D there is, the less interesting it is - having seen "Thor", "The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn", "John Carter", "Prometheus" and "The Amazing Spider-Man" in 3D, and found that the third dimension added little or nothing to these films, I am fed up of paying extra for the privilege. I missed "Dredd" altogether because I am not prepared to pay the extra cost for 3D, and I recommend that Dr Kermode start a petition, that we can all sign, get the word out, and tell distributors that they can make more money out of us with 2D, especially with IMAX. Unite, comrades, unite against the bourgeois pig dogs that tell us how many dimensions we should view in!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 3.

    I just don't understand how people can compare this splurge of 3D to the introduction of sound in film. Sound was a complete game changer. As a means of story telling, a silent and a talkie are two very different things. The difference in acting styles alone changes how the story is or can be told. Many silent stars didn't survive the transition to talkies because of this enormous change. I don't think any current star will see their revenue decline because their face doesn't look right floating a little above the screen.

    Static image to moving image is one thing. Silent to talkie is another. 2D to things occasionally poking out of the screen to remind you you're watching a 3D film just does not compare.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 4.

    After recently watching my seven year old son reaching out to pop a bubble floating across the screen in Ice Age 4, I began to doubt my sanity. I have NEVER had that kind of immersive 3D experience in the cinema. It got me to thinking about my eyesight. After a little research it turns out that as many at one in twenty of us cannot see 3D at all. After trying the eye-hop game (http://www.vision3d.com/ehop.html), I can confirm that I am "3D blind". I am not alone. MORE 2D please!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 5.

    Sorry, here's that link again:

    http://www.vision3d.com/ehop.html

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 6.

    i say get rid of 2d and just give us imax and 3d - why go to a cinema to watch 2d?? when you can download it to the comfort of your non distracted laptop?? if i want to go to the cinema i want the wow factor like i'm at universal studios florida - so my 2 choices would be imax and 3d - get rid of speckled 2d and keep moving forward - heck i want interactive hologram movies before i die

    and here's another argument i would love you to discuss good dr - why oh why in this day and age do films not release on the same day worldwide - how can hollywood not expect people to download dvdrips or hd camcorders if they wont release the film on a twitter trending same day - i dont want the story spoilt during the month that i wait for it to come to the cinema - this is something i am hating a lot currently living in cyprus - dredd 3d hasn't even come to this country and i don't think it will

    also blurays should come out a lot sooner - heck films like weird science haven't even been put on bluray yet - i'd love to help hollywood by giving them my money but they can't help themselves

    everything is so painstakingly slow in what i would consider the future of technology compared to 10 years ago

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 7.

    i dont think IMAX is for everybody or for every film. I saw DKRises at the worlds largest IMAX in sydney. i had to get up from my seat half way through to sit at the back just so i could actually see the whole image (not a joke). the front 10 or so rows actually made the film unwatchable as it was like putting your nose against the screen of a TV. Id like to say i embrace change but in the case of 3d and to some extent IMAX im not sure i like it. cant i just have my old enjoyable cinema experience back please, no stupid glasses, no extra fees and no vertigo.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 8.

    As someone who has had to suffer headaches through the few times I tried to watch 3D movies I was immensely dissapointed to find that my local cinemas were only showing Dredd in 3D. Emails to the cinemas in question about whether or not 2D screening are forthcoming have been met with bland "We can only confuirm screenings on a week by week basis".

    So I have to ask, in this sort of situation is pirating the film a viable option?

    Even though I haven't seen any evidence of them apparently some people have sighted the mythical beast that is a 2D screening of Dredd so I have to wonder why on Earth all the multiplex cinemas with more screens than I can shake a stick at are not showing it in my region?

    Mark touched on this in an earlier blog about a British film that released in cinemas, on DVD and digatal distibution at the same time and I believe Gabe Newell (although he is from the video game industry and not movies) of Valve Software said it best with (paraphrased) "Piracy is a service issue, not a price issue". Right now there's a service that I am willing to pay for, that the cinemas can provide, but for some reason they aren't offering. If they continue to not offer the service (which is, to be blunt, a service that their whole existance is based around offering) then it's only a matter of time before my patience wears thin and I seek out that service elsewhere.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 9.

    I completely agree with you. 3D is rubbish, it ads nothing to the experience, in fact sometimes it makes it worse. It's like having to pay more to have your popcorns eaten instead of eating them yourself!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 10.

    I hate 3D with a passion. If the story is good then there is absolutely no need for 3D. It always makes for very uncomfortable viewing too as I find your head has to be in a certain position to get the 3D effect. Kill it, it's not worth it.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 11.

    Mark, you didn't bring up Del Toro's 180 on 3D. Del Toro:-

    "the more the ILM shots arrived, the more I realized that there were only a few shots that would miniaturize. I asked the studio, number one, that we would not hyper-stereo-lize the thing. That we would not force 3D on the beauty shots. That we would keep the giant dimensions. They agreed. Number two, they agreed to something very unusual. Normally a conversion takes a few weeks. I asked to start it immediately so we could take the full 40 weeks to do the conversion. As an example, Titanic took about 50 weeks to convert. The final thing that I asked that they agreed to, which was amazing, was that I asked them to give me an extra budget, which is considerable, to actually have ILM composite the shots that are CG native 3D. We’re not giving elements. ILM is giving the composite in 3D from the get-go. That’s a huge, huge element. Now I’m going to be involved in supervising it. What can I tell you? I changed my mind. I’m not running for office. I can do a Romney.”

    Also how people feel with the comparisons between the effect 3D has on a film and the effect Surround Sound has on a film? Forget the glasses, we're talking about the film-making aspect (in a few years time the glasses will be gone). People don't comment on the fact that Schindler's List was mastered with a 5.1 soundtrack, which adds very little to the cinematic experience.

    My personal feelings in terms of distribution are that sure 2D prints should be available in every cinema because what it amounts to is a choice in presentation. The decision as to whether a director should make a 3D film or not is null and void - make it in 3D and let the audience decide how they'd like to have the film presented to them. Obviously money plays a large part so to that end shouldn't people have the chance to pay for what they want - that might mean there should be more 2D prints available but perhaps 2D tickets should cost the same as 3D tickets, that means an increase in cost of 2D tickets!! How would people feel about that?

    The IMAX argument...well it's confused. A large portion audiences don't understand the difference between IMAX cinemas and IMAX 'the format'. People don't realise that Prometheus IMAX is a non-IMAX film retro-fitted to an IMAX projector (but still not formatted to fill the IMAX screen - just blown up to fill the width of the screen).

    So far there have only been what, 5 major motion pictures to actually use the IMAX format properly and even those films only used the format IN PART (Dark Knight, Transformers 2, Tron, MI:4 and The Dark Knight Rises). My question is isn't the changing format of the picture as much of a Brechtian device as wearing the glasses for 3D?

    IMAX may well be the future but a) there are clearly things that need sorting (size of the camera) so that a film can be shot entirely in IMAX and b) it isn't exclusive from 3D - IMAX are working on a 3D IMAX camera.

    So the future may well be IMAX 3D!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 12.

    As an electrical retailer I'm inclined to agree with you, the pick up for 3D TVs has been pretty poor despite the huge increase in content. People just don't want to wear glasses! Customers also tell us that if they want 3D they'll go to the cinema and even then they say it detracts from the story line!

    Smart TVs with on demand streaming though is huge for the movie industry and I can see Netflix and Love Film become an essential subscription in many homes in the next two years.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 13.

    I'd also add that the price of 3D tickets of £13+ is far too expensive in the economic climate, what's more domestic 3D growth is also held back by the simple fact that many people have just upgraded their TVs with the Digital Switchover which is only now approaching it's conclusion in the UK with Northern Ireland later this month http://www.armaghelectrical.com/blog/2012/09/digital-switchover-countdown-in-northern-ireland/ Many consumers feel they need a breather from technology upgrade me thinks...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 14.

    I don't mind you banging on about 3D Mark, most of the time I agree with you. However it's getting to the point now where you're doing that instead of reviewing the movie (Dredd's a good example of this). That seems a bit disrespectful to those who made the film and, more importantly, really frustrating for me when I'm hoping to hear your opinion on a movie’s content and not its presentation.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 15.

    truly this is a historic day: the Good Doctor has admitted to being less right than usual. personally I hate 3D. I've had to watch POTC4, Puss In Boots, and Hugo in 3D and the different quality of the films did not change the fact that in all 3 cases I found the 3D glasses annoying, I hate the light and colour loss and especially the higher ticket prices. maybe it's also because the distributors catering towards a different class of people when it comes to cinema. The peasants can live a miserable life outside while the high and noble royalty can go to see the movie. isn't exclsion of the 2D prints a violation of free movement of goods or a violation of EU competition law or at the very least a restriction on free movement of goods? i think the only way to make corporate tyrannies aware that we're not going to get pushed around is by bringing a case against these practices to court. lets just hope that we'll get another reprieve for a couple of years but in the corporate-friendly environment in the globalized market that now, sadly, seems unlikely.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 16.

    Has anyone given any thought as to how subtitles would work in a 3D film? I imagine the effect would be really jarring if they were 2D against 3D, and 3D subtitles would be an absolute nightmare for an entire film.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 17.

    On the discriminating of disabilities idea is it any different to when they added sound. Suddenly they're making it harder for the deaf to see films...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 18.

    I agree with the good doctor on the walking dead statement but I just read an article on the site Den Of Geek who were revealing the US box office performance so far for Dredd 3D and its not been good despite possitive reviews. Here's a brief exerpt they reported on 1/10

    "Several readers have got in touch with us saying that they've been actively looking to see the film in 2D, but been unable to find a local showing."

    "It is a bit odd, though, that the common complaint about comic book movies is their fixed desire on a PG-13 rating. When one comes along that gets good reviews, and is willing to leave its sharp edges in tact, it simply struggles to make the desired impact."

    Maybe 3D is aimed at youngsters with a more disposable income as apposed to worrying about a mortgage or kids of their on. Adults could care less about the 3D gimmick and as a fan of this comic at 33 years old I would prefer to wait for the DVD as apposed to frittering my hard erned cash on something that should go back to the theme rides in Florida.

    P.S is Disney set for another John Carter with The Lone Ranger? Come to think of it Should John Carter now be a new word for expensive bowel movement? Like when you need to go at the train station.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 19.

    I have no problems viewing things in 3D - my hand is 3D and I can see it perfectly. Dredd 3D and all these other films are in stereo, and they look worse as a result.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 20.

    I thought the 3D in Dredd was interesting because rather than have things fly out of the screen it was used to enhance the depth of particular scenes. I'm still annoyed that I was focused to watch the 3D version and spent the film constantly adjusting the glasses that were sat on top of my prescription ones.

 

Page 1 of 4

This entry is now closed for comments

Share this page

More Posts

Previous
Now You See It, Now You Don't

Friday 28 September 2012, 10:27

Next
Movie Marathon

Friday 5 October 2012, 10:19

About this Blog

Outspoken, opinionated and never lost for words, Mark is the UK's leading film critic.

This twice-weekly video blog is the place where he airs his personal views on the things that most fire him up about cinema - and invites you to give your own opinions.

Blog Updates

Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.

Subscribe using:

What are feeds?