Do you remember 3D? No, no, not 3D as in that 3D-ifying technique, used as a sad attempt to gross more, disgustingly used by a certain number of directors I have come to loathe because of their persistent use of it (I'm looking at you, McG) I mean actual 3D. One of my most fond memories was seeing a 40 minute documentary at the London Science Museum called Bugs in 3D. It was stunning. Some of the images were absolutely mind-boggling. I could see them, actually see their strange little bodies coming toward me. They were right in front of me. Or so my five-year-old brain assumed.
3D works through the natural positioning of the eyes, the left eye seeing more of the left side of an object and vice versa, the brain fusing both viewpoints together to create 3D vision. 3D works in a similar way, with two images being subsequently projected simultaneously for each eye. The full effect is utilised with a pair of glasses to produce the so-called 3D effect.
Another director I get frustrated with is that king of all blockbusters but rip-off story lines, James Cameron. Maybe one day I will review Cameron's 2009 homage to Smurfs, but this is not one of those times. He has declared 3D 'The future of cinema', a statement I find considerably hard to swallow, especially when you take into account 3D is not that new of an invention, having been around in the fifties, when audiences were more ignorant and dumber than those today (although this is not entirely true, Danny Dyer is an apparent bankable lead, especially after threatening to head butt the wonderfully cynical Mark Kermode because 'he doesn't take me seriously as an actor'. Neither does the rest of the world, but hey, at least he's hilarious to watch crash and burn, as Kevin Smith so marvellously put it 'failing upwards')
Here's the thing. Modern audiences should be clever enough to realise that 3D is just a cheap ploy to get butts in seats (or should I say expensive, considering the ridiculous £15 price an unnamed cinema charges for 3D) and should know that if they dropped seeing 3D films every month for 2 years, they could raise enough money to build a well in Africa. It is too expensive, too nauseating, and is simply almost always a horrible headachey experience-almost always.
I could rant all day about 3D, but I will grant a measly grain of respect to it; depending on the film, it can be mesmerising. No matter how much I hated it, and I really hated it, Avatar did actually look beautiful. Sure Sam Worthington, and the remarkable resemblance of the plot to, oh, I don't know, Ferngully, Pocahuntus, Dances With Wolves, Last Of The Dogmen, The Emerald Forest and the many other films that has that damn same plot, were distracting, but I cannot fault how beautiful the world looked. However, the point is just because it looks beautiful, doesn't mean it's worth dying of a migraine for it. If you want beautiful just go to a park, or a lake, or close your eyes and use your damn imagination. Don't spend 5 quid on an extra you can get for free.
The main issue with 3D is that all it is is a gimmick, a cheap old gimmick. It's lost its gleam since the Golden Age of 3D and I can assert from a large percentage of people that it is an easy way to drain your bank account. It can be used to nice effect but no, 3D is not the future of cinema. It is a bunch of idiots with money to waste going to a cinema to wear stupid glasses and get a headache.
MT
Do you agree with MT's opinions? Or do you think 3D is a good thing? Comment below!
No comments:
Post a Comment