BBC - Mark Kermode's film blog

« Previous | Main | Next »

How 3D Really Works

Post categories:

Mark Kermode | 14:23 UK time, Tuesday, 4 January 2011

Ever wondered what the crucial difference is between the way your eyes perceive 2D movies and the way they perceive 3D movies? Let me give you my perspective on that.

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 the blog to access this content.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Thank god Scorsese is around to point out the 'truth' to us plebs and non-creative types. The good doctor almost had me convinced that 3D was like, you know, pants. Now we've both been put in our place we can lap up Marty's next Schlock-fest with the right 'perspective'!

  • Comment number 2.

    A post about things being small or far away, without an oblique Father Ted reference? You disappoint me Kermode :P

  • Comment number 3.

    Oh my, another video about 3-D. Please allow me to end to end this once and for all; 3-D sucks. There.

  • Comment number 4.

    Heavens, imagine the exorcist in 3-D....

  • Comment number 5.

    I've tried so hard to give 3-D a chance. I really have. After all, people probably said the same about surround sound, even color when they first came around. But I've yet to see anything that much changes my opinion. AVATAR perhaps, but that's really the only one so far. Who knows, maybe some very talented filmmaker will come along and chance my mind and deliver a film that benefits artistically from 3-D, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, but for the time being, it's just not something I can get worked up about.

  • Comment number 6.

    Genius

  • Comment number 7.

  • Comment number 8.

    And as if by magic this from the Financial Times -

    "3-D fails to lift Hollywood box office take.

    The great 3-D film revolution is failing to live up to its initial promise with US cinema attendance falling close to 10 per cent in 2010 and end-of-year movies failing to lift the gloom.

    The key summer period, when Hollywood studios release their biggest films of the year, was the lowest attended in a decade, according to Hollywood.com. Hollywood studios have embraced 3-D technology because it allows them to charge a higher ticket price. But the lower attendance points to consumer fatigue, said Richard Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG Research.

    Several 3-D films flopped at the box office in 2010. “The US consumer is becoming increasingly less interested in 3-D movies, while the horror and gross-out comedy genres may benefit from 3-D (think Saw 3-D or Jackass 3-D), the vast majority of 3-D movies this year have been disappointing at best."

  • Comment number 9.

    Projectile pea soup in 3d?

    Having enjoyed some of the 3d bits of Avatar - particularly the cereal advert before the feature - I'd be quite happy to watch a few more things in 3d. As long as it's all about the 3d rather than just added in there for the sake of it. cf the additional cgi effects added to every bloody scene in Star Wars 4-6.

    The thing is though, is there anyway to avoid the 3d glasses over glasses look that makes me feel like I'm at the cinema wearing diving goggles?

  • Comment number 10.

    3d is why I rarely go to the cinema anymore. Not enough 2D screenings of the latest blockbusters; Avatar had none that I could find, but that didn't worry me that much because I had no urgent need to see it, and after watching the DVD I was underwhelmed anyway. But for the films that I did really want to see, like Toy Story 3 and Inception, I had to really struggle to find showings. The nearest cinema I could find that had 2D showings was nearly three times the distance.

  • Comment number 11.

    "In 2D you're just watching dramas about differently sized people"

    .....Funniest thing I've ever heard!!

  • Comment number 12.

    @Matt Hone You shouldn't have had too many problems seeing Inception in 2D as that's the only way it was projected. Fortunately it seems that not even Warners' marketing people can force Chris Nolan into making the next Batman in 3D.

  • Comment number 13.

    Ouch! Mark is taking the P more than a little. 3D has come around before and has never lasted. It might prove more persistent this time round but only if film-makers remember that 3D or 2D, the format is far less important than story, characterisation, acting, etc, etc.

  • Comment number 14.

    I've always wanted to comment on one of the Good Doctor's videos, but I couldn't think of a name to write as a pseudonym. After watching this video, I was finally able to think of one; can you see why?

  • Comment number 15.

    Honestly Dr K? You're starting to sound obsessed, and not in a magnificent way.

  • Comment number 16.

    Whilst I understand you really don't like 3D, I personally quite like it. I'm not championing it by any means but if more films made proper use of it I don't think there would be such a backlash. I can only think of four films that have used the technology and have executed it to it's proper potential. Avatar being the obvious one, Tron: Legacy (for me the experience was dazzling and I couldn't imagine seeing it in 2D and being as impressed, but overall the film was a huge letdown, which is what matters at the end of the day), Toy Story 3 and Up.

    The above films are genuine reasons why 3D CAN work. I know that the good doctor has said that he prefered Toy Story 3 in 2D but the use of the extra dimension for me really adds something, something which I can't exactly put my finger on. I quite like the aforementioned perspective and depth that is added to the image. The loss of colour saturation is a big negative though and I grant you that. However, people aren't THAT thick (even Michael Bay fans) that they can't tell what's moving forwards or backwards. I see where you're coming from but some people who enjoy 3D might find this blog a tad condesending (I don't include myself in that demographic).

    Whilst I hope that Christopher Nolan decides not to shoot The Dark Knight Rises in 3D, but if he does choose to, I know which queue I'll be in and it will be the one where people are handed some posh glasses on the way into the screening. A film such as that in IMAX 3D would surely be vertigo-inducing!

    The important thing to remember I guess is that narrative, acting, direction and script are king. It's why I have such high hopes for Tintin this Christmas. The pedigree and talent involved in that production is staggering and could well be the film to change the naysayers minds. Your opinions on Tintin, Dr. K?

  • Comment number 17.

    megamind 3d guilty on all counts but didnt notice 3d quite so much as the film was so turgid.please post fred review!

  • Comment number 18.

    Bloody hilarious!

  • Comment number 19.

    Sir Ridley Scott's Alien prequels are going to be shot in 3D...

  • Comment number 20.

    Another comment on the 3-D debacle but much welcomed, very funny and an excellent satirical comment on why the arguments put for 3-D being great are simply nonsense. Thanks Dr. Kermode.

  • Comment number 21.

    A film doesn't make any more money because it's in 3D than when it's in 2D. It's impossible to prove that 3D attracts an audience. The only way to prove it to me (and indeed everyone else) is to re-release a really unpopular film in 3D.

  • Comment number 22.

    Sadly this blog makes it look like you just have a chip on your shoulder about 3D.

    Is your problem with the concept of viewing a film in 3D (perhaps an admirable goal - match what the director saw on set), or with the current technology for doing so (or some recent films usage of that technoology)? Or with the trend for making everything in 3D to jump on the bandwagon (or worse, converting) - which I would certainly agree with?

    I wouldn't call myself pro-3D... or anti it (i've seen good and aweful 3D films, just as I have seen good and bad 2D films, good and bad colour films.. etc), but I can't really understand around here for it.

  • Comment number 23.

    Nothing wrong with HD though, Mark. Put it on your to-do list for 2011.

    (Glad everyone else thought of Fathers Ted and Dougal in a caravan with toy cows as well.)

  • Comment number 24.

    Hark, what's that I hear? Oh, it's that broken record clicking again.

  • Comment number 25.

    Wow, i have a new foud respect for the film making process, having to shrink all those actors and objects. Thank god 3D has come to make it all easy and to give us all "perspective". Thankyou Dr Kermode.

  • Comment number 26.

    Obviously 3D opens certain interesting doors. Boycotting 3D altogether is unecessary in my opinion but to replace 2D with it is just rediculous. As to me they are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Certain scripts would lend themselves beautifully for a 3D film. But they would probably be experiences which resemble theme park rides. That is basically the stuff that 3D lends itself for, as far as I'm concerned. A neat invention in itself but it just lends itself better for certain things than it does for other things.

    I have to say I'd be interested in seeing a truly inspired film designed especially for 3D by a proper writer and director. Something which couldn't work as a 2D film. But just as a 3D film. That would be interesting. But my interest in 2D films is in the end far greater.

  • Comment number 27.

    Nice video, btw. It's quite humorous. lol

  • Comment number 28.

    @ 9barr

    "I hope that Christopher Nolan decides not to shoot The Dark Knight Rises in 3D."

    If he does, he should call it "The Dark Knight goes further away" instead! ;) Or "The Dark Knight sees things in perspective". :P I'm just kidding. :)

  • Comment number 29.

    I keep meaning to mention here that I remember many years reading in New Scientist research about 3D depth perception. They had proved that the whole concept of using the brain doing maths based on the viewing angle between the eyes only worked over relatively short distances (I think it was in the order of ten feet). Any further out than that the brain relies precisely on the sort of visual cues Mark is depicting in this video for determining position. It's also how we perceive movement towards and away from us: by measuring the change in size of the object in our field of vision, not the directions our two eyes are pointing in.

  • Comment number 30.

    thank you doctor, i needed a good laugh. happy new year.

  • Comment number 31.

    That poor dead horse.... Dr. K will not be satisfied until there's nothing left.

  • Comment number 32.

    Given Herzog has just done a documentary on prehistoric cave art, The Cave of Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, using by the sound of it homemade 3D handheld cameras; some creative uses of 3D may prove more than just interesting experiments.

    Toy Story 3 would have been a success whether it had been in 3D or not, but then it had good story and characters.
    Just about every 3D other film last year sucked because of a lack of story and character. (Personally I liked Avatar, but the story worked (for me) as well in 2D as in 3D.)

    Rather than bashing 3D (by now a lazy target on this blog) it'd be better to lambast the poor scripts and unremitting diet of unimaginative sequels and remakes that cinema goers are now subjected to. Cinema may soon become zombified by constantly regurgitating itself.

    Better to use your position Dr K to try and argue for greater risk taking and originality in script writing.
    What is really shocking is just how poor most 2D films are nowadays; that really does deserve our ire.

  • Comment number 33.

    @ Orthodoxcaveman

    "Several 3-D films flopped at the box office in 2010. “The US consumer is becoming increasingly less interested in 3-D movies, while the horror and gross-out comedy genres may benefit from 3-D (think Saw 3-D or Jackass 3-D), the vast majority of 3-D movies this year have been disappointing at best.""

    It can't be denied that the new 3D does have the potential to offer something to the cinema experience (forgive me for this blasphemy Dr K...). There were some scenes in Avatar that were genuinely cool to watch... I'm thinking the scene where the burning ash is falling or some of the scenes of the forest at night. Much of the rest of the film didn't benefit from being in 3D but those two scenes did. And because they stood out so clearly from the other scenes I was immediately bounced out of my immersion in the story.

    The main problem with 3D is that nobody has come up with a convincing reason as to why we should want our films in 3D. Having an interesting 3D effect on something like a snowstorm for example might look cool but it doesn't add to the film. Having things fired towards the audience gets samey after the 2nd or 3rd time.

    They've improved 3D technically so that it does genuinely look 3D if done well but they've still now come up with a reason why it is anything other than a gimmick. Like Dr K I don't think it will last more than a few years.

  • Comment number 34.

    Can't remember if I've posted this before but, this "cracked.com" writer makes a reasonable (and amusing) defense of 3D technology in cinema. No really!

  • Comment number 35.

    Finally, a new argument against 3D: It's sizist! Traditional 2D movies depict people of many different sizes, how will they be represented fairly by 3D technology?

    Where will there be role models for people of many sizes in the future? For instance, in the past, tiny people have been shown as usefully forming crowds, or cowering in the presence of what appear to be large iguana-like beasts.

    What will happen to the large headed people without torsos? They have graced our screens for so long and shown us their skin in such resolution that we are more intimate with their pores than those of our closest lovers. And the eyes, sometimes appearing alone, or in twos on a background of flesh with a hint of nose bridge between, or behind an incredibly large key hole shaped structure, or a hole in an apparently mammoth wall next to the showers of the 50 ft women; surely there will be no place for these freaks of nature in the incredibly realistic natural world of 3D.

    Lars Von Trier is courting controversy again with his Dogme 3D. Once again he is being a purist, insisting that the audience "use their eyes as cameras" to capture the action of his new 3D process. Using specially built "theatres", specially trained performers will use their entire bodies to perform roles on a platform some are calling a "stage" (a shortened version of the term soundstage). Due to current limitations of this technology, these specialists will need to repeat their actions precisely for each showing of the film, and a team, using the military word troop, of these performers will be present at all venues in distribution.

    Von Trier said, "Every member of the audience will see a different film. For instance, the people in the back row will believe the film to be about much smaller people than those at the front."

  • Comment number 36.

    right, enough already

    1)time is a dimension. so films have always had 3-D's its just one of them wasn't/isn't the 3rd D. just the 1st, 2nd and 4th.

    2)Scorsese is wrong about reality being to same as stereoscopic 3d.

    this is because if i was on one side of the screen i would have a different perspective than on the other side of the screen. this phenomenon is commonly experienced in that archaic of all technological mediums... THE THEATER!!!

    3)its just depth perspective.

    i may be being presumptuous but i've never herd cinema audiences crying;

    "WHY IS THE SCREEN SO FLAT, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND"

    Its because our minds automatically get that there is a difference in distance 90% of the time and the other 10% some clever clogs film maker doesn't want us to have one.


    4) Nolan is right.

    the screen is much darker which isn't helped by the fact that if you carry your questionably "3-d" glasses in your bag as i do (as i never quite know i will need them), they will get covered in scratches very easily making the picture quality worse or the film even more expensive.

    5)this bit is a little bit theoretical...

    in the same way as our brains see depth perspective without needing the "3d effect" when we see "3d" elements of different depths both touching the edge of the frame, our brain figures out the image is flat again meaning for all that camera equipment, for all the special cinema's, for all the annoying glass, for all the candle whatever-they-call-em's of light OUR BRAIN UNDOES IT ALL ANYWAY, MAKING THE "3D" FILM 2D AGAIN.

    NOW WILL SOME ONE PLEASE JUST GO TO HOLLYWOOD AND EXPLAIN THAT ITS VERY SILLY SO WE CAN ALL STOP BEING SO ANGRY ABOUT IT.

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    yours faithfully
    richard

  • Comment number 37.

    Aiden wrote "A film doesn't make any more money because it's in 3D than when it's in 2D. It's impossible to prove that 3D attracts an audience. The only way to prove it to me (and indeed everyone else) is to re-release a really unpopular film in 3D."

    A film does make more money than 2D simply because each ticket costs more! As for attracting more viewers - would Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland really be the 2nd highest-grossing film of the year if hadn't been the first major 3-D release after Avatar? And I doubt Clash Of The Titans and The Last Airbender would be 10 and 13 respectively if they had just been 2D.

    The 3-D effect does seem to be waning, though. Partly thanks to 20th Century Fox's dodgy conversions - ironic as it was them who hyped it up in the first place!

  • Comment number 38.

    Quite simply, I loved this! Keep up the good Fight Kermy!

  • Comment number 39.

    Can anybody say 'grumpy old man'?!

    Oh, and get your regular glasses checked if putting 3D glasses on makes everything fuzzy for you - that's not the desired effect and not the one I or anyone else I know gets when watching films in RealD. Sure, it's a little darker than usual because of the polarised lenses/projection technology used, but nothing like having snowstorm fuzz laid over the image.

    3D photography is just another form of cinematography, along with composition, movement, lighting, focus and depth of field, lens/filter/stock choice, time-lapse and ramping effects, and others - are you trying to say that cinematography has no value in cinema? Sure, the motives for its recent resurgent are obviously fiscal and to attempt to combat piracy, and the retrofitted 3D versions are definitely not as good as when shot in 3D at source, but that doesn't mean there's anything flawed about films being presented in a way that offers an enhanced illusion of depth.

    Mark, I very much enjoy your reviews (and often agree with them), your banter with Dr. Mayo and in-depth knowledge of certain genres, films and careers, your contribution to The Culture Show and much more... but I can only hope Scorcese will be the one to help you see the (3D) light. Don't become a luddite...

  • Comment number 40.

    When did Mark's particularly fundamental disdain for 3D begin? What set it off? Look back at podcasts from three or four years ago. On more than one occasion - Meet The Robinsons springs to mind - he urges people to see the film in 3D if they are going to see it, because it's interesting. I think I remember him even saying it's "good". Even as recently as Bolt (Feb 2009), by which time Mark was very much against 3D, he supported its use in the final scene, a scene in which the oppressive smoke from a fire clogs up one's vision and is, as Mark says (to paraphrase) approaches immersion moreso than any 3D he has seen. He actually sounds impressed.

    I'm on-side about being suspicious of 3D, but by no means as strongly as you, Mark. It seems to me, and it's certainly my perspective, that Mark's simply afraid of 3D taking over and the death of 2D cinema. I can't see this happening anytime soon, just like I can't really see celluloid dying out as a production format. Digital projection may well take over, but I'm in the school of what's in-camera creates a film's look, not the projection.

    Celluloid and digital can happily co-exist, as can 2D and 3D. What artistic value 3D has is entirely subjective, and in many ways difficult to gauge. An example: Mark preferred Toy Story 3 in 2D, which I think was the format he saw it in second time. Now there are such a wealth of factors changing one's response to a film between each viewing that to know for sure that it is the depth of vision is, I think, a hard thing to place. In this case I think Mark put it down to the dimensions because he has such problems with 3D.
    I saw TS3 twice in 3D. I forgot about the 3D mostly, and I preferred the film second time round. I cried both times. I have since seen it maybe half a dozen times in 2D at home. It was on my fifth or sixth viewing, at home on 2D Blu-Ray, that I decided it was absolutely perfect, and was once again streaming with tears, and I can put this down to many factors beyond flatness.

    Does this mean that I was immersed enough first&second time to love the film because of the 3D? Why did I prefer it later: because of its 2D-simplicity or because I'd changed? Was I more immersed on home viewings because I didn't have 3D distractions or glasses? It's impossible to say. Short of wiping one's memory and screening the film twice, there is no way to gain a control sample. Therefore criticism concerning 'immersion' and emotional response deserves to be more in-depth than the snarky, Richard Dawkins-type fundamentalism displayed above. The only cause this debate is having is strengthening the views of those FOR 3D, who are, let's face it, the money-men and decision makers. Equally so, they need to up their game and explain to us WHY 3D can create a physiological response which 2D cannot.

    My suspicion is that there is nothing inherent in 3D which involves me moreso than 2D. I was never interested in Avatar, because as much as the lenses may well be representing my natural vision, I was taken from that by the dismal dialogue/plot/action etc, and let's not forget that...I know I'm looking at aliens. I don't do that with my natural vision. But this is a whole other debate. I may only think this way because I've been raised on 2D cinema. If a child is raised only on 3D, 2D may detract from their involvement.

    And besides, I'd argue, in a very literal and scientifically-ignorant way, that we see in 2D as much as we do 3D. Surely...we see 3D because our eyes know to focus on what is close, and do not focus on what is distant/peripheral. Our eyes are lenses. 2D films us focus shifts in the same way. And besides (I'll lose support here if not before, but I'm scientifically-stupid) were we not to touch, would we know we saw in three dimensions?

    Arguments, now.

    If audiences weren't charged extra for 3D this debate wouldn't be nearly as heated.

  • Comment number 41.

    We need people to be more intelligent and incisive about this whole debate. Like Nolan, who as people above had said, made some intelligent points about screen dimness. Agree or not, at least the man's looking into this with some dedication, it deserves that respect.

  • Comment number 42.

    This is so true, it's insulting and as Mark has demonstrated, betraysa complete lack of understanding of how our brains perceive 2d images.
    However not only is 3D completely annoying, it may actually be damaging;
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/games-giant-issues-3d-warning-2172247.html

    This relates to 3D gaming, but surely must give pause when we consider the expected uptake of 3D tv.
    I fear however that as far as film is concerned we will be forced to accept 3D, hollywood seems to preaching it with missionary zeal, and I'm worried that soon I will not be given the option of seeing a 2D version, or will have to travel long distances to find it.

  • Comment number 43.

    It is interesting that Martin Scorsese mentions our conversations take place in 3D and tries to use that as an argument pro-stereoscopic movie making. The fact of the matter is, we don't notice we have our conversations in 3D because our eyes and mind are acclimatised to the dimensions of our visual perception and thus we do not notice the 3D, and this same principle applies to 3D cinema; yes, the first 10 minutes of Toy Story 3 or Tron: Legacy or Avatar look 3D boom-wow spectacular, but then your eyes adjust to fit the format and all you're left with is a darker print, a headache, a more expensive ticket and a silly pair of glasses.

    And besides, Martin, we actually have our conversations in 4D, but there you are.

  • Comment number 44.

    A suggestion to those who find the dimness issue negligible. Next time you see a 3D film, take advantage of your multiplex's lax security and staggered showing times, and on exiting immediately go into a screen showing the same film in 2D (probably already in progress). (well, you have paid over the odds to see it already).

    I did this with Avatar, rewatching the final 15 minutes. My jaw dropped when I saw how much brighter and vibrant the colours were. Which I guess matters when watching the Blue Man group perform Dances with Wolves (not my joke, but I couldn't resist).

  • Comment number 45.

    I doubt Kermode will have seen the Father Ted episode, he's not much of a tv watcher :)

  • Comment number 46.

    I'm not biased one way or another about 3D, if people like it then they're welcome to it but they should maybe be more aware of the hand that slides into their pocket an takes a bit more of their hard earned every time they feel the need to see The Future Of Entertainment and less concerned with the hyperbole about Dimensions and Experiences. I am, however, delighted to see any talking head who doesn't know what he's talking about being called to order, even if it is Big Marty.

  • Comment number 47.

    Interesting to consider that the first 3D movie ever shot was, in effect, Citizen Kane. Due to the limitations of camera focus at the time, cameras either focussed on the foreground (resulting in a fuzzy background) or focussed on the background (with dodgy focus on the foreground). Notable, was, of course, the classic camera move of shifting focus from foreground to background or vice versa for dramatic effect.

    Welles changed all that by shooting CK in such a way that background was in focus at the same time as foreground. For some shots this meant engaging in quite a bit of technical wizardy, e.g. the scene where Joseph Cotton walks in focus from the background up to Welles in the foreground and hangs around behind Welles shoulder was a composite shot. When Welles was asked why he insisted on doing this he apparently replied that when he looked at a scene in real life the background had the same focus as the foreground and he wanted to see that on film.

    Welles also played around with perspective quite a bit in CK, e.g. classic shots where Welles is in the foreground and a fireplace in the background looks "normal" size due to our accommodation of perspective (it being "smaller" than Welles figure in the foreground). Only to have Welles walk back into the background whereupon the viewer discovers that the fireplace is actually huge and dwarfs Welles size.

    My point (if there is one) is that decent directors/cinematographers have been messing around with depth perception and surprising 3D visual tricks for a very long time. I wish Mark would stop chanting "2D legs good, 3D legs bad" and give a bit more consideration to the surprising visual tricks that work or don't work for the viewer, whether they're in 2D or 3D. I'm interested to see that Herzog insisted that his cave film be filmed in 3D on the grounds that the paintings themselves take advantage of the contours of the cave in their representations and that 2D would not have done the effect justice. Herzog knows that he is filming these caves for posterity, having been given unprecedented access to them. This is the 3D film I'm most looking forward to seeing in future.

  • Comment number 48.

    The thing is this, Mark: if you despise 3D so much then simply stop giving it the time of day and the satisfaction of your obvious emotional distress.

  • Comment number 49.

    Also, Alina, the point you make about Citizen Kane may be interesting, but has absolutely nothing to do with the 3D process. "3D" does not mean "used two cameras", as those cameras by definition must be shooting at the same aperture and on the same focal plane whilst positioned a very precise distance apart. So no, Citizen Kane was not the first film shot in 3D.

  • Comment number 50.

    The problem with 3D film is that it forces us to focus with both eyes when normally we just favour one. Try it. When you read this your really only focusing on it with one eye. This is why 3D is a headache inducing strain for many people.

  • Comment number 51.

    @ Craig-Disko. How old are you?

  • Comment number 52.

    @Alina - not sure why that would be relevant, but if it helps I am a photographer.

  • Comment number 53.

    Personally, I'm glad that Mark has highlighted the reasons as to why 3D is the future of entertainment.

    For a long time now, I have been forced to read books in 2D. I can only hope that with the advent of this exciting innovation in 3D technology, the printed word can finally catch up with it's visual cousin.

    I'm sure that with these new techniques - the characters, the story and indeed the print itself will finally “leap off the page” and bring the added realism that the novel so desperately needs.

    As a human being with a limited concentration span, I find myself easily distracted and unable to relate to this old fashioned 2D world. And lets not forget the added benefits to the publishing industry; with a reduction in book piracy, the ability to charge more money for said books and the requirement to wear stupid glasses for even longer periods of time. Sales of aspirin and other headache cures are also likely to receive a timely boost.

    I'm sure this is what Dostoyevsky would have wanted. And remember people let's keep it all in perspective.

  • Comment number 54.

    I would suspect that Dr K's conversion to the 2D cause came around the time at which they suddenly started charging extra for the glasses - before that time, possibly with Meet The Robinsons and certainly Journey To The Centre Of The Earth, I believe he was recommending that if we do see them, we see them in 3D. But I think it was when they raised the prices that he suggested otherwise.

    This is of course an absolute scam - the cinemas are using the same projectors and screens whether it's a 3D film or not; they're just putting the polarising filter in place or taking it away and that costs nothing - and they MUST have recouped the costs by now. But to be honest I'm only really annoyed when they don't bother with a 2D option, especially with a retro-converted film such as Piranha where the 3D simply didn't work. Clash Of The Titans and The Last Airbender I managed to see in 2D: that's the way they were shot and the way I was happy to see them. Piranha lost a star because the supposed improvements actually made the film worse. I was happy to pay the extra £1.50 for Saw 7, The Hole and Tron Legacy because that's the way they were shot and meant to be seen.

    (On a sidenote, I've no interest in IMAX because that's not the way films are supposed to be seen, as there are so few sites for it. If you really want me to watch a Batman movie in IMAX, you'd better cut the ticket prices because I'm not paying £17 railfares to London, my nearest IMAX, and then paying £15 to get in when I can see the same film at one of four handy multiplexes. In case it had slipped by unnoticed, there's a bit of a financial flap going on these days and money is a tad tight.)

    I've never had headache or eyestrain problems with 3D films. My problems have been that they weren't necessarily good movies, but that probably had nothing to with the 3D. The other thing is that they're not really using the 3D very much and the films might as well have been made flat. But how many films are made in 2.35 widescreen that don't use the wide ratio to its fullest and might as well have been made in standard ratio (or even 4:3)? How many films didn't really need to be made with a digital six-channel Dolby surround soundtrack?

  • Comment number 55.

    The only film I have seen in 3D is Toy Story 3, which I also saw in 2D. To me the two films looked exactly the same, but for one of them I was charged extra and forced to wear a pair of glasses. I thought Avatar was an awful film in 2D, and unless the 3D version had a completely different storyline it would still have been dreadful.

    Dear Mr Kermode, Please don't stop reminding us that 3D doesn't make films any better; a good film is good and a bad film isn't. Thanks x

  • Comment number 56.

    Craig-Disko wrote:
    "@Alina - not sure why that would be relevant, but if it helps I am a photographer."

    Ah, that would explain your focus on technical details rather than having perspective on the big picture. Yes, CK was technically shot in 2D, but it was revolutionary in shooting in such a way that it took advantage of how the human eye processes perspective. There's a difference between technical details and technique that uses viewer's expectation of visual perception to surprise them.

    Sorry if I'm coming across as snarky - had a hard day at work.

  • Comment number 57.

    @Alina

    Don't worry about it. My intention wasn't to offend you. Having read your comment I simply felt that the implication was that, by your rationale, any film using focus pulling, split lens or perspective techniques qualified as 3D. I understand totally your point, and with over 30 years of deep love for cinema (including three years reviewing films for an independent podcast) I do indeed see "the big picture" as you put it.

    Orson Welles was indeed a trailblazer in his adoption of more "photographic" techniques in filmmaking, and viewed in the context of it's time the effect was quite probably in as much contrast to it's peer pictures as something like Avatar in 3D would be today, which is to say he effectively re-defined the canvas of film as a visual medium.

    While I stand by my assertion that this in no way constitutes 3D, reading my own response I now realise it was more bullish than intended and I apologise if I added to your duff day. If I were close enough to buy you a drink I would. Alas I think with my working day having just begun and your own now ended we are further apart than would make this practical!

    Apologies again for my brashness.

  • Comment number 58.

    I wish they would re-release the original 3d version of Dial M for Murder, so we could all see it the way it was designed to be seen, but now without the restriction of red and blue glasses screwing up the image.

    I really doubt 3d will be going anywhere, but it will settle down as filmmakers and studios start to realize that only certain films need to be 3D. Retro fitting doesnt work (except for nightmare before christmas, while being one of the first, is still some of the best post 3D there is) and brighter projectors would help too.

  • Comment number 59.

    More Batman 3D title suggestions:

    The dark knight becomes distant
    The dark knight gets deep
    :P

  • Comment number 60.

    "The thing is this, Mark: if you despise 3D so much then simply stop giving it the time of day and the satisfaction of your obvious emotional distress."

    The thing is, Mark can't. Most people who don't believe the stereoscopic effect adds anything can just either catch a 2D showing or wait for the home release. But as a professional film critic, he's got to watch all this rubbish even though he doesn't particularly want to.

    That's one big reason, no doubt, why it sends him off on such a high-octane rant. The other is (at least for me and many others) that 3D is basically a gimmick. When you have to see so many more films, you're bound to hit the boredom threshold with the trick before others will.

    So far, admittedly, I've only seen two films with the current generation of stereoscopic presentation, Toy Story 3 and How To Train Your Dragon. Both brilliant, but neither lost their power on the 2D Blu-ray release.

  • Comment number 61.

    @Adam Bowie

    Ah, that does make me feel like a fool! Truth be told I didn't even bother watching Inception in the cinema after the trouble I had with Toy Story 3 (but was blown away by it on Blu-ray all the same), I guess I should have remembered Christopher Nolan's problems with 3D.

  • Comment number 62.

    @ianl

    Oh, but he can. Being a professional film reviewer does not preclude Mark from simply abstaining from 3D screenings, except where no 2D option is available.

    I personally wouldn't care one way or the other about 3D were it not for the inexplicable, indefensible extra charge levied upon the ticket price. There is no justification for the extra ticket cost at all, as the argument that it's more expensive to make films in 3D simply doesn't hold water.

    As far as CG movies are concerned there is NO EXTRA COST involved in mounting a second virtual camera, so that's strike one.

    For those movies involving physical costs: as a good friend of mine regularly points out Titanic was the most expensive film ever made at the time, but I didn't pay extra to see that. James Cameron and the studio knew that they needed confidence in the quality of their product (which is a separate debate) to return profit. So that's strike two.

    As for the extra costs involved in retro-fitting? JUST DON'T DO IT THEN! You should have shot it in 3D in the first place. Strike three, I think, and the 3D bandwagon is most definitely out.

    I choose to vote with my wallet by simply not paying to see movies in 3D, and if it means I have to wait for certain titles to come out on home formats then that's a price I'm willing to pay. If everybody who moans about it was willing to make the same sacrifice then we wouldn't be having this debate because the studios would have realised there was no profit in it by now.

    Mark, I respect you completely (and I am enjoying your book, by the way), but instead of investing your time in venting your spleen on the topic how about organising some sort of boycott? Where you lead I'm sure most of us will follow.

  • Comment number 63.

    Craig-Disko wrote:
    "If I were close enough to buy you a drink I would."

    If I were close enough to accept that drink I would.

    Speaking of 3D I had the displeasure of watching Piranha 3D on blu-ray - yes, I was looking for some rollicking cheap laughs. Boy, is this a POS that's not even worth the Two-Dollar-Tuesday fee I paid.

    I was stunned to learn that the background that I assumed was CGI because it looked so fake was actual location. Then I considered what all of this must have looked like in 3D and I understood that the movie probably looked entirely different in 3D - not good, mind you - just much more effective as the exploitation movie it was designed to be - the boobies and butts and shaven nether regions would have looked so much more thrusting, the jump-out scares would have been so much more in-your-face, the gore would have had more splattery crunch to it.

    William Castle's legacy lives on, or maybe P.T. Barnum's legacy lives on.

  • Comment number 64.

    But hang on. If 3D was wrong then they wouldn't master movies in 3D, and we wouldn't all spend more in the cinema. And they wouldn't cut 3D BluRays, and we wouldn't all spend more on big 3D televisions to view them. and we wouldn't all buy an extra pair of 3D specs for everyone in the house. And we wouldn't all have such big overdrafts, and the media companies and the cinemas and the tech firms and the retailers and the bankers wouldn't have such big smiles on their faces.

    So 3D has got to be right. Right?

    3D - Keeping the big people big and the small people controlled.

  • Comment number 65.

    Here's what I quite literally see as the real problem with 3D films...

    When I see reality in 3D, I get depth perception, and my eye is drawn around the scene to objects of interest. A moving object in the background draws my eye, and I re-focus upon it so the foreground objects are now out of focus.

    With 3D film, the director decides where the focus is - whether a prominent foreground object or mid-ground, so regardless of where my eye is drawn in the scene, I am always pulled back to the director's chosen item because it is all that I can focus upon properly. It's a restriction of my freedom to choose where to look.

    Until 3D film solves the problem of allowing me what to focus upon as well as giving apparent depth of field, it will always remain unsatisfying for me.

    The outstanding "wow" moments in Avatar, for example, are those where I happen to want to be focused on exactly the 3D elements the director chose to focus upon for me. When he gets that choice wrong (or when I do?), I'm disappointed.

  • Comment number 66.

    I'm glad this was all a joke. Heaven forbid you have to use your imagination when watching what is supposed to be an art form. Not having both eyes to see at once myself I can rubbish reports that you need 2 eyes to perceive depth! You do to see 3D films and TV. Therefore I never have and never will pay more to get a pair of polaroid glasses just to see half a film. If anything the multicolored ones were far cooler and could be worn afterwards as a 90s fashion statement.
    I hope this money driven industry focuses on how to reclaim films as a cinematic art form. Even if this is a selfish wish, it could surely improve the experience? I cant immagine seeing Amele, The Shawshank Redemption of Slumdog Millionaire in 3D would boost your experience and these are amongst the best loved films ever. I don't believe Avatar is ... I perceive it (even though i reuse to watch it due to my aforementioned selfish desires) to be a fad of 3D with a poor storyline. I'd rather watch pornography in 3D, it would be truly different! Alas I never will. Shame.

  • Comment number 67.

    @Joe

    Bless you, sir! If I had the money I'd spend it all developing a way to allow you to experience 3D porn :) The point you make about Hollywood spending it's resources more efficiently in reclaiming the art form are, in my humble opinion, spot on.

  • Comment number 68.

    3D doesn't do it for me... Too many headaches no matter where I sit in the cinema...

    But then again, at the risk of being blasphemous, I don't like HD either.

    The other day for the first time I saw something on BluRay... and I just didn't like it. I then watched a few more movies - and same feeling again. It's almost TOO clear... I just could not get into that wonderful state of "suspension of disbelief" which I normally enjoy with any good movie.

    So Dr K, fancy doing an "uncut" on HD vs the norm?

    For me, it's like comparing Analog and Digital audio... sometimes that vinyl just sounds better. Strange but true.

    What do you think Doc?

  • Comment number 69.

    @OftenAmazed

    I had a similar experience with HD not so long ago. I was over at a friend's house and Never Say Never Again came on telly. He has one of those HD ready screens (not sure whether it's plasma or LCD) and it actually made the film seem more televisual, perhaps even like a straight-to-video erotic thriller. Has anyone else had that experience of HD making a film seem less like a film and more like a widescreen-shot TV programme?

  • Comment number 70.

    @KubrickandScott

    >"it actually made the film seem more televisual"

    Totally agree, that's exactly what is was like. There I was watching a blockbuster movie which seemed to have the same production values as Aussie Soap "Neighbours"!

    However, watch same movie on good ol' DVD... and all is well.

    Go figure!?!

  • Comment number 71.

    @ KubrickandScott

    Most likely their TV had some kind of 'motion interpolation' doohicky turned on, which smooths things out. It also makes movies look like soap operas and so should be turned off when watching films.

    HD is a fantastic thing - proper framerates (no UK pitch raising), amazing picture quality often better than the local fleapit, and smashing sound.

  • Comment number 72.

    So it is not just an excuse for cienemas to charge a few more quid for tickets a maker more money?

  • Comment number 73.

    Ha ha! My sentiments exactly.

    I daresay one day there will be machines that can beam high quality stereoscopic images directly into the brain. Until then I'll stick with my perfectly fine 2D system, thank you very much.

  • Comment number 74.

    I think when films benefit from 3-D, that is films that already rely on visual spectacle, then it's a fantastic thing. Yes there are films that don't need it, and yes there are films that have had 3-D added as a post production effect, and suffer from it, but the industry is learning quickly. The people that omplain about 3-D make me think of those people that must have complained when colour began to replace black and white, or when talkies began to replace silent film. I love the old films with Harold Loyd and Charlie Chaplin, but that doesn't mean I have to shun new fangled technologies like sound, colour, or indeed 3-D.

  • Comment number 75.

    @KubrickandScott - @mrklaw is correct, the 'TVisation' thing is caused when the 'clever' TVs try to use motion interpolation to smooth movement. You can see it just as badly on standard-def discs if you've configured your set with it on.

    What I love about the HD disc formats is that look more like film, complete with a bit of grain (if the studio hasn't digitally removed it, natch).

  • Comment number 76.

    While the old broken record is still going round, I have to say, I laughed a lot.

    One of the big fears I have is that lazy directors will use 3D as an excuse to cover up bad cinematography. Never mind that the scene has no depth or perspective because we put the camera in the wrong place, it'll all work out when the 3D edit turns up. Never mind that the scene has no motion or interest, the 3D will spice it up.

    I'm sure that George Lucas will have fun using it to divert attention away from some of the dismal shot composition in some of the newer Star Wars films.

  • Comment number 77.

    I can't believe there's still such a debate about 3D. After all it's just another movie effect. For it to really work and be accepted it I think two things must happen -

    1 - Those stupid glasses need to go. I know there's a ton of research going on about this so I think 3D without glasses isn't too far away.

    2 - We don't need entire movies in 3D. Why couldn't 3D be used as a true effect shot where it's really justified. After a few minutes you forget you're watching a 3D movie, so in effect we're all just sitting like a herd of Buddy Holly fans watching a fuzzy movie. If for example you were watching Casino Royale and the movie switched to 3D for some shots during the crane fight to give a greater sense of how high up they really are, then great.

    It could work if it was used sparingly, in the same way that judiciously used music, surround sound or cgi can lift a scene. To hang an entire film on 3D just seems stupid.

  • Comment number 78.

    My name is Mark Kermode. I have run out of things to say, so I am going to rehash the same banal argument over and over again, whilst ripping off a Father Ted scene, that was shown on Channel Four a few days ago.

  • Comment number 79.

    Dear Mr Kermode
    So Sad I've heard nothing. Perhaps this latest rave review for BOMBER will nudge you towards the DVD player...Wearemoviegeeks.com2010/11/sliff-2010-review-bomber. Would love to have your opinion. More info at Paulcotter.net.
    You could put your thoughts on Bomber's Facebook page.
    Many thanks

  • Comment number 80.

    Mr Cholmondley-Warner presents 3D!
    I must say I'm getting a bit bored with the whole 3D debate too! Change the record Dr K.

  • Comment number 81.

    My word, I just heard that a Dutch director is going to make a historical drama about Willem Barentsz and Nova Zembla. And he's going to do it in 3D to make the movie "even cooler". I say that's a refreshingly simple reason to choose to go 3D; "Why? Because it's just cooler that way man.". lol :)

  • Comment number 82.

    Almost like a classic 80's / 70's Open University. However to further your defence of "the madness of 3D" it will be worth noting that all of this is in the mind... Parallax is the "effect" of 3d (note the small d) that is being manipulated here. Ultimately the image is projected to a flat surface. IT IS NOT 3D...

  • Comment number 83.

    Was that video the calmest, creepiest, most dystopian Kermodian rant ever?

    Yes, the 3D debate is getting boring but if you're going on the attack at least have the decency to try and break my laptop's pathetic speakers.

    BTW @ Soorplume. Saw BOMBER at Kiev film festival and thought it was excellent. Keep telling friends to look out for it but it seems to have disappeared.

  • Comment number 84.

    Hahahaha this made my day!
    And how right you are.

  • Comment number 85.

    Incidentally, the 2010 box office was lower than 2009 for two reasons:

    A) because there wasn't a lot around which was actually good
    B) avatar had made 2.7 billion dollarsin 2009. It would have been impossible to top that!

    Stop blaming 3D for that

  • Comment number 86.

    Perspective is all.
    The first occurrence of 3D was because of the threat of TV.
    This time it's piracy.

    Ad William Goldman said about Hollywood: "no one knows anything."

  • Comment number 87.

    (I was paraphrasing by the way. Particularly when I said Ad instead of As)

  • Comment number 88.

    I could care less if a film is 3D, 2D or 1D (1D is classified as some old tosh from the likes of m night shyamalan). Watching the 3D version of a bad film wont make it any better than its 2D version, a bad film is a bad film regardless of format. 3D wont add to my enjoyment of a good film, I place my values on a good script and performance working in tandem with the visuals and direction. Just because something looks good doesnt mean it is good. Its still a bit gimmicky for me.

  • Comment number 89.

    I’ve seen Kermode on a few things recently and his starting to become the new “Barry Norman”, hates popcorn films only loves great cinematography, and deep storylines. When that happens I’ve always said it’s time to go! The problem with 3D is that is comes on top of High Definition which is still being plugged by TV companies. There is still a significant percentage of the population not sold on HD so 3D is out of the question. Not until most broadcasts are transmitting in full HD will the situation change and people will invest in HD.

    The problem for film makers is that 3D on the big screen can look great when don't correctly, although people don’t want to wear the glasses, but when it’s transferred to the small screen it just does not work. 2011 will either see 3D gaining strength or it’s going to die a horrible death.

  • Comment number 90.

    It's not 3D... it's stereo-planar! By that, I mean a resolution sapping, picture brightness diminishing headache.

    Okay, that's a little unfair, but it is a gimmick that will only work for the odd thing here or there. Anaglyph was a flash in the pan (red/cyan glasses) and so will this be.

    It's a great way, however, of making either a little or a lot of cash.

    1) Blockbuster films in 3D. Give us that Hollywood glow with the latest technology.
    2) 'Re-purpose' (yuck - I hate that word) old worn-out films as 3D.
    3) Let big telly manufacturers sell us loads of new kit - 3D ready screens, glasses, 3D BluRay players etc.

    So, I'm not surprised about the hype. Hollywood and telly makers need a hand just now.

    This 2D to 3D retro-fit is ugly though. Even if stereo-planar works sometimes, it has to be done properly. Sky is using 2 sets of cameras and 2 OB edit suites for 3D sports.

    They can't use the same shots for 2D and stereo - looks naff.

  • Comment number 91.

    Does anyone know who gets the extra 3-D ticket price? I hope the cinemas do, because that's the only justification.

    When 3-D first appeared, for the likes of Meet The Robinsons and Bolt, the cinemas were able to afford the screens and projectors thanks to grants from the UK Film Council (remember them?) who also required the cinemas to show digitally remastered classic films.

    Then Avatar and DreamWorks Animation came along, pushing their films as "must be 3-D" and cinemas were forced to shell out their own cash on lots more equipment, often on screens twice the size as what the UKFC had paid for. Did anyone from Hollywood pay for this? Did the studios subsidise the glasses? No, of course not.

    So now cinemas are charging extra to get their investment back (it's that or sell lots more popcorn) while the studios are probably looking for another gimmick to sell tickets.

  • Comment number 92.

    So no-one would be interested in my idea to remake Citizen Kane as an animated 3D feature then? With Charles Foster Kane portrayed as a cute faced mouse (Charlie) who gets adopted by a wise cracking cat (played by Chris Rock) & a posh dog (played by Jeremy Irons) & who finds out that the meaning of life isn't money...it's love & sledging.

    Anyone?

  • Comment number 93.

    3D isn’t about adding perspective - it adds the illusion of depth. You rightly point out to the fact that perspective can be judged just as well on a 2D screen but I haven’t heard anybody advocating 3D’s ability to add “perspective”. You are reacting to your own artificial argument - in 2D there is no way of telling if a person is near or far away and only 3D offers perspective - who says this? You make not like 3D but your criticism doesn’t make much sense.

  • Comment number 94.

    I'm confused. Mark hasn't really made it clear in the past 2 years or so about his stance on 3D. I wish he'd stop being so ambivalent about it, get off the fence and let us know whether he likes 3D or not.

  • Comment number 95.

    Ha! Brilliant!!!

  • Comment number 96.

    I see a number of issues regarding presenting 3D images in a compelling and readily enjoyable manner.
    As pointed out the "stick it in your face" object coming out of the screen is not really useful for normal story telling (it can be used to give a quick shock but that does not make a compelling narrative). Opinion seems to be that 3D images are better enjoyed as medium and long shots, and also that the camera should not move excessively and the shots should be longer duration (with a greater depth of focus) as people will explore a 3D frame more than a 2D.
    I believe that SKY, when they are presenting a 3D football match, actually have a second edit suite which is delivering a completely separate and different image set. This consists of less close ups, deeper focus, and a lot less cutting.
    Extending this to cinema implies that to present a truly compelling 3D movie it would be necessary to ignore a lot of the editing and shot composition techniques used today to create 2D movies (fast cuts and insert/close ups), and presumably use different ones specific to 3D (as these are developed). So either one would be making a movie which would be less than it could be in 2D or 2 separate versions with the different shot composition, cutting, and focus (and possibly even pacing/script).
    This would create a version that will be compelling for the 3D cinema but less compelling in most of the other distribution channels. As these channels (particularly the streaming to home devices etc.) are likely to become more important, then making them less satisfactory is counter-productive.
    I believe there are other issues with non-cinema 3D.
    1) The viewing angle to the screen in my living room can be as extreme as 45 degrees from the normal for some viewers. Experiments with 3D TVs suggest that this will not be a comfortable angle from which to view.
    2) The smaller TV screen will exasperate the edge effect of 3D where you can only see that part of the image with one eye. If the objects are located further than the screen this simply enhances the feel of the screen as a portal. However with closer object this means they must be central in the viewing area and care must be taken when objects cross the screen.
    3) Casual TV viewing will be more difficult as current 3D screens viewed without the glasses are annoying (IMHO), and if I nip out the kitchen do I really want to wear the glasses?
    I would point out to people saying there is no real additional cost for 3D on CG features that it does require up to twice the rendering, and whilst the cost of this has dropped considerably in recent years it is not insignificant. I say up to as in a rendering pipeline designed for 3D you should be able to do both renders off the same 3D scene (prepared once).
    It seems to me that 3D is best as an "Event" presentation: Sports; Concerts; Hard Floor Shows (Strictly Come Dancing, QI, etc.). This makes me fear that 3D may actually contribute to the reduction in the number of complex dramatic narrative shows, and increase in set-based shows such as 3-camera sitcoms.
    Finally the idea that 3D stops piracy seems silly to me as surely the filter from one of the glasses in front of the lens will give you the view for one of the two eyes, which the camera can record (Admittedly dimmer than without the filter).

  • Comment number 97.

    Your video does prove that 3D isn't necessary but then neither is ice cream. The truth isn't that 3D is utilised because it's necessary to correctly perceive depth but because it can be exciting and thrilling to watch. The problem isn't with 3D itself but with jumping on the 3D bandwaggon so they can charge a third extra admission.

    I support you 100% on your dislike for the retrofitted 3D movies and I do think 3D is being overused where it isn't really adding anything.

    Where 3D works really well is not the movies where they're aiming to be immersive but the poking things at you those film makers are trying to avoid. Beowulf, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs and The Hole showed excellent use of 3D and proved that 3D can be done well to up the thrill factor. Since 3D movies began they've been using the poking things at you technique because it works! Avoiding that to be immersive just leaves the viewer feeling underwhelmed.

    So I don't share your complete scorn of 3D technology but agree it is being misused and overused. I think part of the reason for the push with 3D is film piracy and the 3D is an excuse to charge more to make up for the loss due to this, especially in the DVD market.

  • Comment number 98.

    Yes Kermode you dont like 3D,niether do I for that matter.
    But Please move on,you sound obsessed.haha.

  • Comment number 99.

    Oh dear. I used to really like this blog, now I'm getting a little tired of being constantly told that 3D is a waste of time. Has 3D committed some terrible crime against Dr K that I'm unaware of?

    3D is another toy for the film makers toy box. It can be thrown in there with CGI, monochrome, claymation, animation, elaborate sets etc. Like all of these toys they go in and out of fashion. 3D is currently all the rage, the shiny new action figure that cinema got for metaphorical christmas. And like all shiny new christmas presents these things go in and out of fashion, in and out of use, and (as in 3D) occasionally get discovered again later and fiddled around with for a while.

    I don't want to defend 3D - Dr K has made it clear this is not the place to do it. In fact erect a massive sign saying 'To ye who like 3D: abandon all hope here' somewhere on here. But has anyone pointed out that of the four big 3D releases of 2010 (Toy Story 3, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and Tron) three of them would have been rubbish in any number of dimensions. Avatar was cliched and sloppy, Tron was confused and Alice in Wonderland was incomprehensible. Maybe the problem isn't the medium. Maybe, just maybe, it's a lack of decent content...

  • Comment number 100.

    I'm worried by 3-D. We can't write it off as a gimmick and here's why. Yes it was tried in the 70s/80s and failed, but that was with poorer technology.
    When gone with the wind was released they tried to sell dolls of Scarlett and Rhett with little success. If the rule that if it fails once it will always fail was true, then George Lucas would never have brought out the Star Wars toy range.
    3-D is going to mean a greater empahasis on special effects (as if there isn't enough already) and films will be poorer for it; poorly written, poorly developed characters etc... And that will be okay because there is a generation of movie goers who have already been brought up on such tripe. So much so that a friend of mine was in the cinema a few months ago watching Wolfman. After 20 mins a group of five of so people (late teens/early twenties) got up and left, muttering, 'this is rubbish. All they're doing is talking'
    RIP the cinema I love, I will miss you, but I will have some dvds to remember you by!
    Jxx

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.