Is 3D cinema a ripoff?
Alex Hunt
Tweet
Name:Alex Hunt
Member of: 
Joined: Feb 2012Occupation: budding film makerAlex's Full Profile
I, like many, am not a big fan of 3D. It seems like little more than a new gimmick that allows the film industry to make more money. And not many films have given the impression that 3D is the way forward for cinema. We get hooked on the idea of the film being in 3D, with every filmmaker claiming their latest movie has better 3D than the last. But this is rarely the case, and we waste our money paying extra for a pair of glasses that only darken our viewing experience.
3D glasses cost extra, darken the image and aren't guaranteed to go this well with your outfit. Photo by Julia Voßhenrich
But then there are those that take care to make the most of this new technological advance in filmmaking. I am of course talking about James Cameron and Martin Scorsese. Two years ago James Cameron brought Avatar to the big screen in 3D. The audience had never seen anything like it before. We fell in love with 3D and expected the rest of the film world to follow. This didn’t happen and we were given crappy conversions of films like Clash of the Titans.
Conversions are films that were filmed in 2D and then converted to 3D in post production. Sometimes this is used because 3D cameras are too expensive for a film’s budget, but often it’s just a money making ploy. I personally get very annoyed at these conversions. If you are going to make a 3D film you film it in 3D! If you are going to make a franchise in 2D why convert the last one to 3D (HARRY POTTER!?). It has recently been announced that The Avengers will also be given the conversion treatment. As much as I can’t wait for the movie, I will not pay out for an extra dimension! Especially when it was made in 2D!
3D cameras can be prohibitively expensive, but slapdash conversions are often tagged on just to increase box office takings. Photo by Kat Baulu
If you are going to do a conversion you need to put in the necessary time and care to make it worthwhile. Star Wars I has been undergoing the 3D conversion for over a year now. That is film I will pay out to see in 3D (and not just because I am a massive fanboi).
Somebody who does take time and care with their filmmaking is Martin Scorsese, who I mentioned earlier. His most recent film, Hugo, was his first step into 3D, although he’s been fascinated by the technology since he was a child. I went to see Hugo a couple weeks ago and it really was a masterpiece. The 3D was incredible – personally, I found it better then Avatar. You could tell that the director had thought about every individual frame and how to use 3D to its best in each one.
If Hugo is what the future holds for 3D then it sure is the way forward. But if 2012 is full of crappy conversions then I can see it dying out within the next couple of years. Thankfully, we are being blessed with two major films next year that are actually being filmed in 3D and will benefit from this technique. I am talking about The Hobbit and The Amazing Spider-Man, which, as you can guess, I am extremely excited for!
Visit Alex’s blog at: http://alexmovieblog.blogspot.com/
Tweet
vouchers
Loading ...
Rightly said Alex;most of the 3D movies aren’t 3D. To be honest, we actually pay more to get a slight headache as we have to strain our eyes to see through the dark lens.
Since youve told that The Avengers will be in 3D, by the conversion process, I’d rather pay less to enjoy more in 2D.
And another mentionable movie made in 3D was Spy Kids 3. Fantastic.
i think that 3D doesnt really add that much to movies. it keeps being forced down our throats even though most people don’t really care if its 3D or not. for example the harry potter and the deathly hollows, i saw it in both 3D and 2D and to be perfectly honest it make much diference. its not the worth the money if the viewing experience is pretty much the same.
I have to wear 3d glasses over my regular glasses, and it basically means i spend an entire film feeling uncomfortable due to increased weight on my nose. Add to this that some films appear worse than their 2d counterparts, and you realise why I don’t like 3d movies, however, having said that, Avatar and Hugo were amazing, and I will be going to see the Hobbit and the Amazing Spiderman in 3d, but apart from some rare movies like those, I will be sticking to plain old 2d.
3D does not “enhance” my “experience” at the cinema, and does not warrant the extra expence on tickets that are already overpriced. I will be sticking to 2D in the future.
I wear glasses and it’s a pain having to wear a second set over those!! Not only do i look like a bit of a tit but because the 3D specs are pushed further forward by my own glasses but they get pushed right into my field of vision so i get a loverly black line down the center of the film i’m watching!! Only watched 2 films in 3D and i’m absolutley not watching another!
I much rather pay any amount to watch a 2D movie in cinema’s than a 3D movie and be unsatisfied. All the 3D movie’s I’ve watched, I regret each one unfortunately. I think from now on I’m sticking to the 2D versions. Although avatar was executed amazingly, I did expect more from the rest. Anyway there are those who do like 3D movie’s, simply because it is a new way of watching movie’s and I do agree that they shouldn’t be hated or considered as a ripoff because there’s definitely a point when your sitting in that cinema hall and blurt out “wow” haha I know I have. The whole 3D concept is quite cool. People are entitled to their own opinion therefore it shouldn’t always effect another’s view.
i think 3D is absolute kack!! it just seems like a money making scheme especially when its a conversion! another big thing for me is that it gives me a splitting headache! anyway I’m not a fan!
I absolutely agree! 3D also makes for an awful DVD/BluRay version of the movie, as you can clearly distinguish the scenes that have been created specifically to make it “a must see 3D veiwing experience”! Tosh!!!
‘And not many films have given the impression that 3D is the way forward for cinema.’
This is the issue I have about those who complain about 3D – it should not be seen as THE way forward for cinema, but A way. I get so annoyed at those who generalise and tarnish, the 3D concept – rather than poor executions of it, or unneeded conversion. It is a feature, which suits specific circumstances according to the film. Yes – it is used wrongly in many cases, but you don’t say that by saying 3D is bad, gimmicky or a ripoff.
I have to wear the 3D glasses over my own glasses – makes me look dumb (even if it’s dark in there) and gives me a headache. I vote 2D. (BTW I’m not a total ludite. Colour and sound are great!)
It is an absolute waste of money to watch and buy 3d products. Its a really primitive technology, which needs to be updated so we can get rid of these ugly goggles. And even if we got rid of the goggles like nintendo 3ds did, it is extremely dangerous for our eyes. So sadly, by the time 3d evolves to a stage where it is actually good, safe and easy to watch, we would have all past away so dont worry about the future.