BBC - Mark Kermode's film blog

« Previous | Main | Next »

3D Retrofitting Revisited

Post categories:

Mark Kermode | 15:49 UK time, Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Titanic has just been re-released in a retrofitted 3D version. Is there any film that would truly benefit from this process? I can't think of one...

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
The death of 3D

Mark's reviews on 5 live
Scorcese: Why can't we accept 3D?

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.



Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    I'd like to see Irreversible in 3D ..... actually no, maybe i wouldn't

  • Comment number 2.

    Cube ;)

  • Comment number 3.

    The films of Georges Melies, specifically 'La Voyage Dans La Lune', as conveyed by Martin Scorsese in 'Hugo' looked wonderful in 3D in the cinema. Indeed, it was one of the many reasons I went to see Hugo on repeat viewings IN 3D and, given the eccentricity of Melies films, I'm sure the 3D retrofitting may well have evolved the film into 'what the director intended'. All other retrofaffing is pants, mind.

  • Comment number 4.

    I entirely agree; 'Caligula' would be astounding in 3D!!!!

    All seriousness now... No, I cannot think of a single film that would benefit from 3D. The format does little beyond make kids laugh (scream) to have massive animated monsters leer out at them. For any serious film it only causes (for myself) headaches, and dims the picture. Urgh in both cases.

    I remember the first 3D film I saw. It was at an iMax in Leeds and it was something put together by NASA. What the details were I don't recall. And it doesn't matter, for all that anyone cared about was jumping in fright at the shower of Moon-debris seemingly hitting the audience in the face. That is what 3D is. A gimmick. It is great for short films like the one described above, and maybe for some animations that for some reason rely upon the need to stick things into the audience's face, but beyond that I just don't see the point. Avatar was a perfectly acceptable film, and that was without 3D. As you mentioned a while back, the only way 3D enhances anything is when something sticks out the screen, or when someone falls off a cliff and plumets to three dimensional oblivion. I can't think of a film that solely relies upon those two aspects. 3D should be dead, and I personally think it's dying. Know anyone with a 3D TV set? Exactly!

    And 'Titanic'? Well I can't stand it, but I can assure you; if the film was being released in cinemas as the 2D picture it started off as, virtually the same number of people would be flocking to see it. It has (somehow) become iconic, and a re-release of any kind would make money.

  • Comment number 5.

    Which film would benefit from being retrofitted in 3D?
    Well if it were up to George Lucas; probably every great classic film. And that's not all, knowing Lucas penchant for tinkering with his own films, I'm suddenly reminded of the an old Dead Ringers sketch where the unbearable Jar Jar Binks plays a hotel conceirge who gets knifed by a frantic Marion Crane.

    Sorry going off topic there, which film would benefit from 3D retrofitting?
    Simple: Titanic and Avatar; Why, because the stories and the pacing are both boring and slow that an out of focus experience might actually turn the viewing experience of these two films into a sub par of the old saying; 'so bad that its good'.

  • Comment number 6.

    If only Hollywood thought about how to make their narrative and characters three-dimensional instead of just the visuals.

  • Comment number 7.

    The only thing that does, in fact, benefit from movies being retrofitted into 3D is the income of the studios. Of course people will go and see a hit movie which has been retrofitted into 3D, but surely they do not do so because of it being in 3D, but rather because it gives them another chance to see said movie in a cinema, where movies should be seen, as people are well aware.

    Movie studios love to go on about how everything is better in 3D, but if that were the case, why not retrofit something properly bad into 3D and, if the studios are to believe, consequently make it better? The answer is, obviously, that 3D does not make anything better. Except studio income and sales of goggles of reduced color saturation, admittedly.

  • Comment number 8.

    not seen Titanic ,still don't want to in 3d. some bits of lord of the rings would possibly been good ion 3d but i fear its just too dark and that the glasses would render it just about totally black in some bits. as with most of these retro re fits there really is NO NEED!

  • Comment number 9.

    I acctually think, that Titanic is one of the movies, that acctually looks as if it could work in 3D. The shot from the top of the ship, when it stands verdically and you see the dark water far under you... I think it might work... it probably won't, because the ship probably is just going to look smaler and less impressive, but I think there is a chance, that it really might work.

    One film I thought might be interessting in 3D is Lars von Triers "Melancholia". Some of the pictures in of the night sky, when you see all the stars or the big planet hanging over the picture... I really thought (not only in retrospecitv but while watching the movie the first time) that some shots would acctually have been very interessting in 3D.
    Of course, a film like that would really lose something when you dim the light, what eventually happens with 3D, but I acctually wonder, if it is not possible, to acctually make a movie simply brighter, than it is suposed to be, so you can correct the light loss through the glasses.

  • Comment number 10.

    At least Michael bay is still skeptical of retrofits. Imagine Pearl Harbor 3D.

  • Comment number 11.

    I saw The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D about 4-5 years ago, I think it was one of Disneys first attempts at Retro-Fitting a film.

    Maybe I am biased because it is a personal favorite of mine, but I really enjoyed what they had done with it. It was more of a novelty back then and the 3D was worked on properly to work with the film.

    The same time and care does not seem to be taken today so I would not want to see it continued. Having said that, the 3D on Titanic was surprisingly decent

  • Comment number 12.

    Historically speaking the litmus test for 3D conversion should be Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. Also, I think that black and white cinema might suffer less from the 'darkening' caused by stereoscopic goggles.

  • Comment number 13.

    Derek Jarman's Blue

  • Comment number 14.


  • Comment number 15.

    I seriously cannot believe Titanic and Phantom Menace are back on general release again. Surely this a sign of the end times?

    Anyway, my vote goes to Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain -if only to see the hilarious 'electronic orgasm' sequence again.

  • Comment number 16.

    I reckon Terminator Salvation (aka Terminator Salivating) would have been improved in 3D. With a reduction in the size of the image you actually may have been able to see what was going on, and the loss of brightness would prevent you from causing permanent damage to your sight, as well as making it easier for you to fall asleep.

  • Comment number 17.

    Off topic - I bet Edgar Wright could make a good 3D film.

  • Comment number 18.

    I am desperately trying to hold my tongue on things like Debbie does Dallas!

    On a more serious note: NO NO and thrice NO!

  • Comment number 19.

    I doubt it would improve the film overall, but I would be interested in watching a version of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus where the Mirror scenes were in 3D.

  • Comment number 20.

    Any movie with Orlando Bloom in,I've always wanted to see what a plank of wood looks like in 3D

  • Comment number 21.

    The last five seconds of "Back to the Future" where the DeLorean flies into the screen seems to have been made for 3D, but other than that, no, nothing comes to mind. Nothing should come to mind.

    Retrofitted 3D is the new colorization---a worthless gimmick destined to be mocked by future generations. Oh, but who am I kidding? We're already mocking it, aren't we?

  • Comment number 22.

    2001: A Space Odyssey.

  • Comment number 23.

    Cube might be good but I wear glasses that are very comfy and took me ages to pick. Watching ANYTHING in 3D necessitates me wearing a very uncomfy 2nd pair of glasses on the end of my nose to try and make the 3D work, do I wear my prescription glasses under the 3D specs or over them? I don't know. Does it make a difference? Can I just watch the 2D version and save a couple of quid?

    Short answer, probably not. We all know it's just a fad to add a couple of quid to ticket prices that will hopefully die down shortly.

  • Comment number 24.

    Short answer - NO

    Long answer - If retrofiting 3D to a film made a film better, then why only retrofit films that are all ready good, why not retrofit a bad film and use 3D to make it better ? Sorry my mistake they have already tried that with Star War 1 : the Phantom Story, did it make the film better, err err let me think about it for a minute ........... No, if any thing it made it worse.

    Retrofitting 3D is like painting a 'go faster strip' on your car it may look cool but in the end it really make no difference.

    One a side note if your retrofitted 3D to a film that was shot already shot in 3D would it cancel each other out and therefore make it 1D or whould it make it 6D ?

  • Comment number 25.

    Forget 3D, and try Titanic in "Super 3D" (with help from M Bay, JJ Abrams, and $ Lucas)

  • Comment number 26.

    The whole idea is abhorrent to me. Honest. Truly abhorrent. Just like that neanderthal idea of colourising classic black and white films that only work IN black and white. It's all to do with messing with cinema's heritage, and making more money, instead of creating new films. Saying that, and at the risk of sounding hypocritical, the idea of Verhoeven's trashy Showgirls in 3D might just be worth trying, if only for the same reasons that Caligula would be worth doing. For a cheap laugh, and nothing else. Hopefully, audiences stay away from James Cameron's waterlogged epic cash-cow and then the whole ludicrous travesty will be brushed away. Here's hoping...

  • Comment number 27.

    I don't know if 3D would actually improve the films but the one and only film series I would consider watching in 3D is The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Maybe the battle scenes (which are already perfectly fine in 2D) might be even more spectacular in 3D, with spears swords and arrows flying around the screen. I don't know if 3D will benefit these nearly perfect films (especially considering the colour loss and the excruciating headache one gets while watching a 3D film) but we can all dream about the idea of having an arrow shot in our eye, can we not?

  • Comment number 28.

    Generally retro fitting 3D is bad, but something like Barbarella or any film with big colourful visuals. Flash Gordon could work too (imagine the ship at the end when it goes through Ming coming towards you).

  • Comment number 29.

    I am not a fan of 3D films... however the only film i would actually like to see in 3D would be EVENT HORIZON! It has enough naff-looking CGI things floating around and plenty of other pointy & floaty spaceships, people, etc in it that i'm convinced it was actually designed to be shown in 3D. The silliness of the film mixed with the silliness of 3D would combine to create a trashy, gimmicky and pointy thrill ride (not to mention the added thrill of saying Hello to Jason Issacs in 3D).

  • Comment number 30.

    There's a marvellous animated 30 minute short from 1997 called Flatworld by Daniel Greaves which takes place almost entirely in a partially 2 dimensional world, people and some objects are flat and resemble cel animations, within a 3 dimensional landscape. A retrofit 3D would just highlight the interplay between the "flat" and the 3D objects within the film's universe, which the film does pretty handily already. It is literally a wafer thin argument for a retrofit, but it's the only one that comes to mind, and I doubt the filmmaker would thank me for it.

    I have to say that although I had no choice but to see Pirates!.... in 3D, there were one or two moments when I actually thought, I don't mind that this is in 3D. It didn't add a lot, but it didn't seem to detract either. I've always felt that both CGI animation ala Pixar and model animation like Aardmann's don't really suffer from the transition precisely because the former is modelled in computer in a 3 dimensional virtual space and the latter is animated with 3 dimensional objects. In that way 3D with animation is one of the few possibly valid uses of the format, but it doesn't seem essential.

    The only other argument for retro-fitting is to get films a good re-release, regardless of the efficacy of 3D. Anyone for The Devils 3D?

  • Comment number 31.

    I actually don't dislike Titanic. Everything about the ropey story, dialogue etc. is true, but it's grabbed me from a spectacle and atmosphere point of view, unlike Avatar.

    Regarding retro fitting, if it's done well and enough time and artistry is spent on it, I don't see that it should be that different an experience to watching something filmed in 3D. It's is basically just a very extensive CGI enhancement, and there is good CGI and bad CGI.

    As for an existing film that could be enhanced by retrofitting 3D, well, er, no. I actually think Titanic is about as suited to retrofitting 3D as films get, and it's hardly an exciting prospect.
    I'm almost tempted to watch it just to see what sort of jobs they've done. Maybe having the ship in 3D will enhance the sense of scale... *grasps straws*

  • Comment number 32.

    No. You might as well ask if there's ever been a black-and-white film that would benefit from colourisation or a silent film that would benefit from dubbing a soundtrack onto it. This isn't the way they were shot and it isn't the way they should be seen.

    If James Cameron seriously and genuinely believes this kind of tinkering is actually the Future Of Cinema, let him retrofit Piranha 2: Flying Killers. The things that people liked about Titanic, or indeed hated about Titanic, will be neither enhanced nor fixed by fiddling around with the pixels in the background. All it will achieve is another stack of tear-stained dollar bills shovelled into Cameron's Big Shed Full Of Money. What happened to the man who made Aliens and The Terminator?

  • Comment number 33.

    I just saw Titanic for the first time in 3D in a cinemas. The film was okay and I am glad I had a change to enjoy it on a large screen, but the retro-fitted 3D was pathetic. Apparently making something "3D" amounts to focusing on objects in the foreground and blurring everything in the background. It looked disjointed and lackluster (practically low budget!) and I was irritated to have to see a movie with wonky 3D goggles that I had to set on top of my real glasses. In the end I wished that I had just rented a Dvd of the film.

    I think Cameron and the studio thought Titanic's re-release would do better in its opening weekend (in the United States) but they didn't anticipate another 30 million to be taken in by The Hunger Games. It couldn't even beat the American Pie sequel which was released the same weekend. With the price of a ticket to a 3D film as well as the mediocre output of the retrofitting, people probably decided to just watch it at home instead of going out to see it again at the cinemas. This release is just going to be another nail in the coffin supporting Mark's "Death of 3D" theory.

    One movie I think would be worthy of a 3D re-release is Jaws. Even though there is not much scenery in the first 3/4 of the film to extract for 3D retrofitting, it would be marvelous to see the Shark's first appearance to jump out at you from the water. Also, it would be nice for young people like myself to have a chance to see Jaws in a cinemas for the first time. If the trend continues we might see every movie by Lucas, Speilberg and Cameron re-released on the 3D ticket soon.

  • Comment number 34.

    No. Not one of them. 3D is rubbish.

  • Comment number 35.

    This is Cinerama:

    The only time 3D will ever work is if the story being told is one which could never be told in 2D.

  • Comment number 36.

    Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens? Or any Russ Meyer film, for that matter.

  • Comment number 37.

    "Avatar", or perhaps "John Carter". By which I mean making the characters three dimensional.

  • Comment number 38.

    No one seems to have thought to retrofit all those 3-D movies from the 50s and 60s. I don't know that it would necessarily make them better but surely 'common sense' dictates that, of all the films, those would be prime candidates...

  • Comment number 39.

    Some bit of 2001, mainly the bits in space, but I'd want the rest in 2D - but somehow I don't think the trouble of whipping glasses on and off is worth the effort, really.

    I can imagine a film being made for 3D and being a better film for it, provided the plot, characterisation, etc, etc, is up to snuff, but if it's not already been written for it, what's the point?

    The problem with most films made for 3D so far is that the film-makers concerned seem to put all their energies in to the technicals and somehow overlook those qualities that actually distinguish a 'good' film from a 'ho-hum' film.

    In short, it's a distraction for both film-makers and film viewers.

  • Comment number 40.

    Anything based on Edwin A Abbott's 1884 novella Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, the point being that the existence of a third dimension is central to the plot...
    There are 2 movies: Flatland and a short Flatland: The Movie (the one with Martin Sheen) and indeed checking finds that Flatland: The Movie is being retrofitted for IMAX 3D.

  • Comment number 41.

    Yes, T2, I'm just kidding, I just want to see it on 2D on the big screen and a 3D redo is the only way I'll get that, so buy your ticket to Titanic 3D so we can get closer to T2 back in the cinema.

  • Comment number 42.

    At a push I could only come up with a couple of options, Ghostbusters and The Matrix. Both rely heavily on special effects and both have many moments where 3D may add a little something extra.
    At the end of the day 3D will always be second fiddle to IMAX however if you offer me a 3D slimer or proton stream coming right at me I'll join the que.

  • Comment number 43.

    I was just wondering what 2001 would look like in 3d! Might just work!

  • Comment number 44.

    Scott Pilgrim, just to see those coins pop out ;D

    I'd still end up seeing it in 2D as 3D gives me health problems.

    Speaking of Titanic, I'd rather see Titanic: The Legend Goes On animated musical, complete with rapping dog despite being as bad as it infamously is, at least its shorter!

  • Comment number 45.

    As 3 hours of your life is a big ask!

  • Comment number 46.

    It's gotta be "Weekend at bernies 2".

  • Comment number 47.

    If your going to retro fit any film how about Airplane. The film is one joke after another so one more can't harm.
    Serious answer would be that it is just a disgusting way of getting more money from a film, can't think of any my favorite films I would like to see in 3D as ones made for it I was not impressed by, lack of quality in the image when people or things are in motion has put me off it + the glasses are a pain.

  • Comment number 48.


    Star Trek (2009) should be retrofitted to 3D so I can then hate it even more than I do at present.

  • Comment number 49.

    Waterworld. It might make all the non-consequential stuff mildly amusing.

  • Comment number 50.

    None I actively want to be retrofitted, but I would pay to watch Scott Pilgrim vs the World in three dimensions. Beyond that: Nowt.

  • Comment number 51.

    No, I've got nothing. Sorry.

  • Comment number 52.

    i can't stand 3D, but it would be interesting to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show or even Phantom Of The Paradise in 3D. Interesting being the key word. It's just too expensive and causes a distraction from the film itself.

  • Comment number 53.

    The one area of film making 3D might actually enhance is hallucinatory scenes. Fear & Loathing In Las Vegas, Jacob's Ladder or even Requiem for a Dream might be even more depressing than the existing versions.

  • Comment number 54.

    Sin City.

  • Comment number 55.

    Avatar cos then it would be like double 3D - so then it would be like 6D -so like the characters would be behind you as well as in front of you and in dimensions you can't even perceive - like in your dreams so they would totally talk and sing to you in your dreams and you'd have blue people dreams which would be just totally crazy and immersive and interactive.

    And the Passion of the Christ. And Schindler's List. Because They Happened In 3D.

  • Comment number 56.

    Well, I don't think retro-fitting into 3D does a movie any good. On the other hand, there are some movies from the 80's that I would love to see retrofitted just so that I could see them on the big screen again!

  • Comment number 57.

    Not really. Any film which is worth retrofitting from a studios point of view is an 'event movie'. I'd much rather they save their time and money on making disappointing retrofit of an old film and instead simply release a 70mm print which can be viewed at an IMAX Cinema and other large venues.

  • Comment number 58.

    Dr Kermode, you must remember the infamous moment that *comes* towards the end of Enter the Void - essentially a sex scene filmed in extreme close-up and immediately followed by what could be delicately referred to as the "climax". When I saw Enter the Void in the Glasgow Film Theatre the audience reaction to that moment (as well as much of the rest of the film) was somewhere between stunned bewilderment and uproarious hilarity. In 3D, perhaps it would tip the scales more towards one or the other? (I'm going with the hilarity, myself.)

    DECLARATION OF INTEREST: I genuinely have no time for 3D. I didn't even appreciate Martin Scorsese's Hugo in 3D; I found the film far more agreeable when I went to see it in 2D. Why? Because it didn't give me a headache, and I wasn't distracted from the wonderful story.

    So I can only say that not only should no film be retro-fitted in 3D, no film should be filmed in 3D. There should be a law against it. Call me a dimensional fascist(?) all you want, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  • Comment number 59.

    I've got a left field choice.

    I would choose to retrofit Kathryn Bigelow's Strange Days (a much neglected and under rated materpiece co-written by James Cameron) because it deals with a version of reality and recorded memories and I think a 3D version would be very interesting to see as it would add to that 'odd' reality.

    Another film I would retrofit would be Dark City simply to see the scenes when the city is being changed by the strangers.

  • Comment number 60.

    2001: A Space Odyssey

  • Comment number 61.

    "I can't think of one, single example". Mark, you just perfectly answered the question. I never once looked at films like The Artist and thought "I wish that could be improved by 3D". No film in the ENTIRE history of cinema can be improved by retrofitted 3D! The main example of that? The Lion King.

  • Comment number 62.

    I think The Matrix would look amazing in 3D. The effects would be incredible and maybe it would enhance the flat characters a bit. Another film would be Lord of the Rings because that at least has loads pf epic battles and is a really great trilogy. Perhaps 3D would only add to the epic experience. Oh and Mark, I hate to disagree with you, but Titani is one of my favourite films of all time. It's not as good as when I saw it the first time, but still a masterpiece and 3D would enhance the experience. I agree with what you're saying about retrofitted 3D because I think 3D only works if the movie is filmed in 3D like Avatar and Hugo (both great), but may be Cameron could make it work. Maybe he could be the one to change the way we think about retrofitted 3D.

  • Comment number 63.

    Ang Lee's Hulk could have been improved in 3D. It would at least make the visuals better and less big and floppy although the movie was dark anyway and 3D might make it darker.

  • Comment number 64.

    like you dr k i can't think of one single movie that would be improved but i would like to see raiders of the lost ark in might be fun.

  • Comment number 65.

    Starship Troopers. But only the battle parts, where the bug aliens are leaping into the camera.
    And even then, it wouldn't be THAT great, but thats the only film I can think of where 3D would not be detrimental.

  • Comment number 66.


  • Comment number 67.

    Just finished reading 'The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex'. Even though I often disagree with Mark's opinions on individual films, he is as passionate, intelligent, witty and erudite a writer on cinema as I have ever read. I absolutely loved the book and am about to buy the first one. (this book was a present from my ex-girlfriend!)

  • Comment number 68.

    Benjamin Sniddlegrass and the Cauldron of Penguins

  • Comment number 69.

    I just wish more film makers would concentrate on making their characters three dimensional

  • Comment number 70.

    What about older 3D films that had the, arguably, more rubbish red and blue 3D technology? films like Jaws 3D etc...

  • Comment number 71.

    I cannot think of any single film that would benefit in its entirety.

    There are scenes from films that would be cool in 3D, the opening from Star Wars would undoubtedly be impressive for example.

    As I was discussing this with a friend the other day we came to the conclusion that as it is really just a gimmick, films that use it as a gimmick are best. So give me something that just chucks stuff at the screen at you for 30 minutes.

    At my only 3D films experience so far (Resident Evil something) the most impressive bit of 3D was the Panasonic telly advert. It really felt like their logo was spinning about a yard from my face...... and that says it all.

  • Comment number 72.

    I'm trying to imagine an IMAX 3D version of Speed Racer, given that the 2D IMAX version already just about made my head explode.

  • Comment number 73.

    I've said before that, although retro-fitted 3D films do look terrible, films shot in 3D are actually great to look at, particularly if their bright and colourful. However Dr. K is right, I can't think of a single retro-fitted 3D film that's looked good. Granted I've not seen that many 3D films so I can't really comment, but I think there will be one some day.
    As a joke however, I've heard some people say that they'd have loved to have seen Terrence Malick's Tree of Life in 3D, and although I've not seen the film I always laugh at that prospect, as most critics seem to adore Malick's films but hate 3D (much like the good doctor), so how they'd have reacted would've been interesting.

  • Comment number 74.

    No, there is never a reason to make any movie in 3D. If you want 3D go to an amusement park.
    And I may have welled up at the end of your blog today... Kate Winslet may have William Shatner Star trek Syndrome that Mr. Shatner was afflicted with in the late 80s to early 90s. He was able to live happier after he accepted that people remembered the show favorably, he's fortunate to have appeared on it and it isn't a heavy burden to carry. perhaps Kate will do the same in the future.

  • Comment number 75.

    Exorcist 2: Heretic

  • Comment number 76.

    I'd like to see The Plank (1967) with Eric Sykes in 3D, not for the 3D of course, I just haven't seen it since I was about 5 years old and would like to see it again.

  • Comment number 77.

    I would remake the Evil dead 1 and 2 in 3D. To me the only place 3D belongs is in horror. The thing is that the violence and horror is slapstick. While I know thats the point but it could have a little bit more of scary if you had 3D with the blood, body parts and Bruce Campbell's chin. I think he flinging of pweepople and the size of things in perspective.

  • Comment number 78.

    I think "Inception in 3D: Wrath of the Totems" would make a cracking film. The question you must ask yourself, is he joking...?

  • Comment number 79.

    I think you are missing the point. For me it's not the 3D aspect that draws me in. It's the idea of being able to see these films again at the cinema. I was too young to see Titanic at the cinema and seeing it on the imax screen last week was unbelieveable. Forget the 3D. It was forgettable. But I love Titanic. I understand your criticisms of it, but seeing it at the cinema was amazing.

    One of my favourite films of all time is Beauty and the Beast, which is coming to the cinema again soon. And i was 1 when that came out at the cinema so never saw it. I don't care about the 3D and if they have a Beauty and the Beast 3D (in 2D) version no doubt i will go and see that, but this is the only way to see some brilliant films on the big screen that i couldn't see first time round.

    And in terms of a 3D remake, i think the 3D is pointless and adds nothing. So to show this, why not 3D retrofit a film that it would no absolutely nothing for - maybe 12 Angry Men! Just for a laugh. But at least it would give us all a chance to see a fantastic film on the big screen again.

  • Comment number 80.

    Shame. Fassbender would have you worrying he'd take your eye out!

  • Comment number 81.

    I can't think of any film that would be improved with 3D and, like you Dr. K, I'm tired of studio executives churning out retrofitted films that were a massive blockbuster hit upon their initial release and then using that as an excuse to say "3D is the future".

    If they truly wanted to prove that it is 3D that cinema goers love and want, why not re-release and retrofit a film that was a huge flop, if that film then became a hit - with the only difference being it was now in 3D - they would be proved right.

    Although, given what just happened with "John Carter of ****" I seriously doubt they'll be doing that any time soon.

  • Comment number 82.

    On a serious note, I would be fascinated to see Katsuhiro Otomo's masterpiece Akira in 3D. The nightscapes of future Tokyo, the chaos that Tetsuo causes at the end and of course, that horrendous sequence with the toy car and the bear with milk coming out of its eyes in the room made of Lego! It's an astonishing film and a feast for the eyes in 2D. To see it on the big screen AND in 3D would probably make my head explode.

    And finally here's two more for you (don't hate me) but I would be curious to see one of Kurosawa's epics in 3D. The two that spring to mind are Seven Samurai and Kagemusha. Just the scale of them would be aweinspiring. Mainly because I never saw them on the big screen.

  • Comment number 83.

    I think The Godfather would be good in 3D, and then they could do Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket. Obviously I am being sarcastic. I have only seen one retrofitted movie in 3D and that was the last Harry Potter movie. I couldnt stand it. It really hurt my eyes and was not enjoyable at all. I dont think any movie that is actually good should be retrofitted. Thus leading to my next point...

    You know I probably the matrix would be cool in 3D. Sure does have good action. I would be okay with this, as long as no one every mentions the second and third one ever again.

    For the record, I am glad that Dr. Kermode had the sentiments about Titanic as I do.

  • Comment number 84.

    Maybe Kubrick's 2001, the sense depth in this classic may lend itself well. Honestly, I don't think any 2D film would benefit being retrofitted. What happened to remastering and the tidying up of classic films, now, instead we are left with darker re-releases with characters pointing fingers out at the audience.

  • Comment number 85.

    @73. Don't waste your time with it. One of the most tedious and pretentious films ever made. The worse thing about it - it has absolutely nothing to say, and it's supposed to be about...everything!

    I've just saved you two and a half hours of your life you would otherwise have lost forever. The only way Tree Of Life could be retrofitted is if it was deleted from living memory and all evidence if its existence erased.

  • Comment number 86.

    Would Hitchcock have used CGI 3D for the vertigeneous scenes in Vertigo? The base of the mission tower could go to and from the viewer as well as spin to give a pretty decent bit of vertigo. But that would just be an added extra (or even gimmick) and wouldn't increase or decrease the plot.

  • Comment number 87.

    Pink Flamingos.

  • Comment number 88.

    In my opinion, Titanic's 3D conversion is better than most films actually shot in 3D.

  • Comment number 89.


  • Comment number 90.

    Raging Bull. Inside the fight with 3-D, could be epic.

  • Comment number 91.

    Plan 9 from outer space.

  • Comment number 92.

    3D? Isn't that what the theatre is for? The whole 'immersive' argument simply doesn't work because you're still looking in on it through a window... totally agree with Mark that for a film to be immersive you need characters, narrative, a level of cinematic artistry... y'know - the kind of stuff you can't retrofit.

    In fact that would be more interesting a trend - retrofitting some narrative punch into films that were needlessly useless... so, imagine if George Lucas had handed The Phantom Menace to Lawrence Kadan and Irvin Kershner (had he still been around) to retrofit with some emotional arc and decent dialogue and plotting instead of just making it pokey: I'm sure there are more people who'd pay to go see that than some shonky 3D.

  • Comment number 93.

    Oh, hi Mark. Tommy Wiseau's cult film The Room is supposedly going to be re-released in theaters in 3D. Hey, it can't make it any worse, can it?

  • Comment number 94.

    No. Not been to see any 3D movie yet - tried those demo glasses and 3D TV in Comet and it gave me a headache - after only a couple of minutes. Surround sound and even digital yes but 3D no. Isn't real life 3D enough?

  • Comment number 95.

    I watched Titanic in 3D and thoroughly enjoyed it. I didnt marvel at things popping out of the screen in a child-like manner but on occassion I was reminded of the spectacle of it all. The iconic shot of the two stars at the front of the ship as the camera swooped by looked far far better in 3D than in 2D as did many other shots where the added DEPTH to the scene made the whole thing look more... natural.
    And for me, that is what the 3D process brings to the movie experience: a more natural look. I don't expect every shot in a 3D movie to be awe-inspiring in the same way as I don't giggle childishly because the rose bush in my garden looks much closer to me than the tree across the street. I just accept it. Same with movies in 3D.
    I think people will accept 3D movies more - including our beloved Dr Kermode - as soon as film companies stop marketing them as "something special" and just get on with it. Like they did with sound and colour.
    Oh and I would pay good money to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in 3D. Now that would be awe-inspiring.

  • Comment number 96.

    Prepare to put a large slice of pie into a hat for you are about to eat these words:

    The Creature From The Black Lagoon, It Came From Outer Space and, um, Robot Monster.

  • Comment number 97.

    I actually think the original Alien would work quite well as it's mostly shot with fairly close camera work in confined spaces. This type of thing suits 3D fairly well as panoramic shots lose all perspective anyway. The issue of being dim isn't there as it's dark as hell anyway.

    Let's face it, who doesn't want to see a chest bust in 3D.

    Other than that let's hope this stupid format dies out soon. Perhaps this new spate of re-released crud will help it fizzle out sooner rather than later as people realise they are paying again to see films that were not very good the first time round.

  • Comment number 98.

    Blue by Derek Jarman. This film needs an extra dimension.

  • Comment number 99.

    I think Cronenberg's Videodrome and Hideo Nakata's Ringu could be interesting in 3D. Both films explore ideas of breaking the fourth wall between an image on screen and the real world. The final scene of Ringu could potentially be even more chilling in 3D if done well.

    However, that said, if either of those films were to be released in 3D I would probably roll my eyes and refuse to see them.

  • Comment number 100.

    Jaws 3.

    Oh, er...


Page 1 of 2

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.