3D......"Da Detrimental Dimension"

There are indications that Hollywood's rush to extract extra cash from cinemagoers in return for an extra visual dimension might be doomed to follow previous 3D initiatives into the cutting room bin.

The release of Avatar last December - the James Cameron epic which grossed $2.7bn - had movie execs licking their lips at the prospect of taking punters for an extra fiver if they could just persuade them to don a pair of 3D specs.

The tridemensional landrush soon delivered dedicated 3D pics such as Alice In Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon and Shrek Forever After. However, as the Avatar effect began to fade, audiences appeared to be abandoning the novelty.

I tried to come up with a number of reasons why 3D sucks:

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

3.THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D.

4. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D. Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.


Looking at this year's Box office charts,I have noted that most of the movies which held the number one spot are in 3D.The likes of Alice in Wonderland,Despicable Me,Toy Story 3 and Clash of the Titans have all had the luxury of caressing that number one spot.This trend makes the movie directors/producers think that they can get away with any crap that they come up with.

Some of this year's 3D movies will make you want to shoot yourself in the head.


JACKASS -The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O’s you-know-what in that way.The previous Jackass movies made me want to puke my guts out.Now I don't know what this one will do to me.

STEP UP 3D - This is surely a completely rubbish film from start to finish.I don't know who'll want to watch a bunch of 'street dancing wannabes' flaunting in 3D.First the movie (if you can call it that),has no story at all,it's basically an excuse to start dancing.

CLASH OF THE TITANS - the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific.” And it did. The “3-D” was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders.




HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS:PART 1 - I don't even know where to start here.This will leave J.K Rowling speechless (and not in a good 'euphoric' kind of way).Releasing Harry Potter in 3D will only contribute and further worsen the notion that Daniel Radcliffe is too old now and not cute anymore(not that he used to be cute anyway).I can not wait to see the reaction of the 'teenage girls' after they see Dani's aging face.

Those movies represent a '3D Debacle'.I don't know what's next in the 3D business.Perhaps the adult film industry may want to start their own trend of '3D Pornography',that should be refreshing (no pun intended).