"Coming soon! Something nobody wants and runs the risk of setting the medium of film back many decades!"

I’m not a luddite.  I’m not adverse to new technology.  I’m not opposed to the idea of change.  I’m not so naive as to think that things will always be the way they are and I’m not stupid enough to think that things should always stay the way they are.  I feel I need to qualify this statement before I make the following:  I hate films in 3D.

There are two major concerns that I have with 3D!!!! being incorporated into films:  the all time favourite double act, Time and Money.

Just to give a bit of background, to create a modern 3D effect in film (as opposed to the retro effect which required red/blue glasses), there appear to be two methods.  I’m not a massive film technophile and I’m feeling lazy on the research so this is going to be vague, but essentially the first way is to set up two cameras whilst filming in order to capture a depth of field.  The second way is to take a finished film into post production and separate out different layers and with the assistance of extensive rotoscoping, bring it together to create the depth of field illusion afterwards.*

The first method can create some stunning and immersive effects and was used very effectively in Avatar, as James Cameron was essentially the pioneer of this technology and therefore knew every little detail about it before committing it to film.  The second method can create something incredibly jarring and is used in pretty much every other film that has the dreaded words “In 3D!!!!!!” after it.

Ironically enough, the inclusion of 3D!!!! tends to completely flatten the film.  What you end up with is something akin to the parrallax scrolling that used to feature in 16 bit platform games such as Sonic the Hedgehog.  It certainly doesn’t necessarily give you full immersion, even when done really well.  Instead you are painfully reminded that you are watching a flat screen which perhaps looks to have a background moving very slowly, a middle  ground moving at normal speed and a foreground moving slightly faster.

Retrospectively adding 3D can have some adverse affects on the audience.  People have at worst reported motion sickness, but more likely, your brain is just going to be unhappy with the visuals.  Our sight gubbins that allow us to see are incredibly sophisticated, automatically adjusting for focus on objects that our brain picks out as important.  The rotorscoped retrospective 3D!!!!! tends to decide for us what we’re going to be focussing on by pulling its depth of field trick which can easily make your brain jump up and down screaming “but I wanted to look at that!”.

Actual Time and Money Concerns

In terms of production, adding 3D!!!!!! to a film costs a lot and time wise it can easily add at least six months onto the release date for a film.  This is a lot of extra cash and a lot of extra production time that adds practically no value to the film.

For an audience member, it’s very obvious that this is a way to squeeze a few extra pennies out of us, even though in London you can easily pay £10 for a ticket, and closer to £13 if you buy a premium seat.**  Not only that, but you’re paying extra for an addition that not only doesn’t add anything significant to the film but isn’t really understood by the cinemas either.  I am yet to see a film in 3D that they have managed to address the issue of lighting, because once you put on those idiotic glasses, your right hand instantly starts trying to grope for a non-existent remote control to adjust the brightness and contrast because everything suddenly gets very dark.

Finally, lets just clarify what makes good 3D and bad 3D!!!!!  Generally if the film is filmed in 3D and whilst you are watching it you frequently forget that it’s there, then it has been done well, although the question remains what is entirely the point of all that extra technology and development if the enhancement is so subtle you don’t notice it, but never mind.  If the film is more interested in throwing things so they look like they’re flying out of the screen into the audience to make them flinch, chances are it will be on balance bad 3D!!!!!***

Like any special effect, when there is too much focus on it, it can often be at detriment to the whole film, and I shall leave it at that before I derail myself into ranting about the Star Wars prequels like the angry geek that I’m really not.

Additional Notes

*If you’re interested in the techniques used for filming in 3D, go and look it up.  I’m massively paraphrasing from what I’ve read from third or fourth hand sources.  When done properly, this is a very clever technique and is spectacular.

I am still amazed that everyone puts up with the glasses though…

**Just for the record, premium seats at odeon cinemas are no real different from other seats, except they are a different colour, and have a slightly higher back, and I do mean slightly.  They are also located in that mid-back area of the cinema.  They are highly highly frustrating, especially when the cinema is full except for the three large rows of seats in the prime viewing spot.

***I admit, the thing-flying-through-the-screen trick is pretty funny the first couple of times you see it and feel the whole audience collide heads with whoever they’re sitting next to in an automatic flinching movement.