Yesterday afternoon I went to see Thor at my local cinema. I’ve never been a big fan of Thor as a comic book character simply because he’s too powerful, but I think they did a pretty good job introducing him and further setting up the Avengers movie, which some of us have been salivating about for quite a while now.
In spite of this I was still left with a bad taste in my mouth after my trip to the movies and this was only partially because of the stale popcorn and flat coke that I had to mortgage my house to buy. The main reason for my displeasure was the ‘3D experience’ that was once again forced upon me.
The amazing immersive world of 3D first bites at the box office. To watch Thor in 3D I had to pay for the price of a normal ticket plus an extra £1.50 for the privilege. Then it would have been an extra £2 for the glasses if I hadn’t brought the ones I paid for last time.
I will concede that Thor is being shown in both 3D and 2D, giving at least the impression that people have a choice as to how they watch the film. I’m thoroughly in favour of this as I think most people will decide to not spend two and a half hours wearing dark glasses and film makers will eventually get the picture and stop trying to resurrect a technology that first failed to impress 50 years ago. Unfortunately my cinema had just one showing in 2D and about 8 in 3D so there wasn’t really that much of a choice.
Grumbling to myself like Mutley at Dick Dastardly I took my seat, placed the glasses onto my head and started watching the movie. Like I said before, I enjoyed it, but that was most definitely despite the 3D rather than because of it. It was ropey at best and downright ugly and distracting at worst. Some of the scenes in Asgard were almost unwatchable thanks to blurring, while scenes at night were often difficult to make out because they hadn’t compensated enough for the amount of light lost while wearing the glasses.
I accept that this isn’t always the case with 3D. I understand that problems occur when a movie isn’t filmed in 3D but has an extra dimension thrust upon it at a later stage. Also, some 3D movies were truly beautiful, such as Avatar (even if the story wasn’t great). However, I don’t think I would have lost anything by seeing Avatar in 2D as the effects were amazing even without the extra depth.
My biggest complaint with 3D is that it feels like the Emperor’s New Clothes. We’re being told that it’s the greatest, newest technology in the world and the future of cinema while my grandfather sits there laughing and telling me that they were telling him that in the 1950s.
It feels more like Hollywood’s latest attempt to prevent piracy than a genuine effort to give customers what they want. I don’t know many people who would rather see a film in 3D and even fewer who are happier to pay extra to do so.
While people have to wear glasses in order to watch films or TV programmes in 3D I can’t see any way for it to catch on in a serious way. Hollywood is going to have to bring me something better than that before I jump on board.
My Blog List
-
-
Logan7 years ago
-
The Jackson Five12 years ago
-
Jon Hamm Interview13 years ago
-
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
1 comment:
Good post and I agree with a lot of what you've said - not least having sat through the horror of Beowulf 3D.
The thing that boggles my mind is that having sold the concept of 3D as the reason to stick with cinemagoing rather than either downloading or waiting for the DVD, companies are now preparing to release Blu-ray 3D editions of their films for home use. Leaving aside the fact that people are much less likely to willingly wear 3D glasses for extended periods at home in front of the telly, it throws up ANOTHER format production companies are expecting consumers to upgrade to and completely negates the whole idea of making the cinema release a must-see. Utterly bonkers on every level.
Also, I might sound a bit curmudgeonly, but I'm very curious to know how much Cineworld make every time they flog a two quid pair of 3D glasses to people who forgot to pick up a pair from the pile they've already got at home. I bet they cost considerably less than £2 to produce. Why not make them look a bit more rubbish so no-one wants to nick them (let's face it, even these ones are horrid unless you want to look like Ronnie Barker) and just have them available when people walk in with a basket to drop them back into at the end?
Post a Comment