«

»

Mar 05 2012

2D or not 2D

… that is the question.

With more and more films being made in 3D, it’s sometimes difficult to find a film that I’m willing to watch.

Because I refuse to watch 3D films.

I refuse to pay the extra ticket cost that most cinemas impose on 3D films. And I refuse to wear those bloody stupid glasses that keep sliding down my nose.

I still think that 3D is a gimmick that will die out once the novelty wears off, but I’m wondering more and more if I’m right.

Film-makers seem more than keen to make their productions in both 2D and 3D, despite the extra cost and technicalities involved, so they must be pretty confident of it’s take-off.

TV manufacturers too, are piling money into developing 3D tellies and the market is now littered with them… and they seem to be selling.

But my personal experience with 3D – both cinematic and televisual – is that it’s just a gimmick that adds very little – if anything – to the watching experience.

The last film I saw in 3D was Shrek 3. Harry and I saw it in Leicester Square last year and I just found it… well, annoying.

The glasses – apart from annoying me by continually sliding down my nose – made the film darker (I’m refering to the brightness of the film now, not its moodiness).

Yes, some of the 3D effects worked… to a degree, but I didn’t feel that any of them contributed anything positive to the overall experience.

In fact, I found that because I spent so much time rating each 3D effect on its effectiveness or not, it actually detracted from my enjoyment of the film, because I wasn’t fully immersed in it, as one should be.

But maybe that’s just me.  For his part, Harry enjoyed it, but also got annoyed with the glasses as they kept falling off his head.

3D TVs also require the use of glasses to get the proper effect. These glasses however, aren’t just the polarised type that you get in the cinema, but are actually active and will work in conjuction with the telly, passing the right bit of info into each eye as required for the brain to be fooled into building up a 3D image.

Of course, glasses as clever as that don’t come cheap: roughly 60 quid a pair, I think. So for the average family of four, that’s about 180 quid extra required to buy the glasses, as most of the tellies only come with one pair.

It could get quite expensive if you want to get a few mates round to watch the footie!

Anyway, what started this rant into the big and small screens and the pointlessness (IMHO) of adding an extra dimension to them?

I’ve just been to the flicks, that’s what, and I watched a film in glorious length and breadth, with no perceived depth (because folks, it ain’t real 3D you know, it’s just your brain being fooled. Yet again).

A couple of films that I was keen to see were only available in 3D, which pissed me off somewhat, so I started ranting to myself. And then I remembered you two and thought I’d share. Because I can be nice sometimes as well as grumpy.

Oh, and at the moment, I’m staying up in Warwickshire – Shakespeare’s county; hence the title.

Pun intended, forsooth.

4 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Dave

    I know. It’s like those “talkies”. Who wants sound when there are perfectly good story boards held up!

    I’ve never seen a 3d film. Perhaps I better have my nose checked for potential glasses slippage?

  2. Brennig

    I’m wit choo, dood.

    But seriously. The lux-loss factor of 3D filming/production is an unacceptable technical by-product. It is interesting to note that renowned film critic Dr Mark Kermode feels that only one 3D product passes his ‘acceptance testing’, and it took a name like ‘Scorsese’ to make it.

  3. Toffeeapple

    I’ve never seen a 3D film either. So I haven’t missed much, eh?

  4. Masher

    Dave – 🙂

    Bren – He’s a Dr? Never knew that.

    Toffeeapple – In my humble opinion: no.

Comments have been disabled.