Is There Any Escape From 3D Films?

Despite its drawbacks, 3D technology will continue to invade our lives, and it will only be a matter of time before we see 4D technology, which will see no doubt George Lucas sitting behind you at the cinema, poking you in the back of the head.

The 3D version of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace will be released in early February; I can already hear the groans of Star Wars nerds emanating from their parent's basements from across the Atlantic (as well as a little bit nearer to home, cough cough).

I won't get into a Star Wars debate, as I don't think my blood pressure could handle it, and to be honest I'm more concerned about the 3D element of this film, and in movies in general. Why do directors and studios insist on re-releasing old films, and producing new ones, in 3D?

Don't get me wrong - I love 3D films. I grew up in Bradford, home of the National Media Museum, and the IMAX screen there was updated to 3D in 1999; there was nothing more pleasurable for a 10-year-old child than to go and sit in a darkened room for a few hours pretending to fly through the Grand Canyon, or to hunt with sharks in the Pacific Ocean.

As I've got older, and my tastes have hopefully matured, the desire to lose oneself in another world has remained, as it has for others, which explains the monumental success of Avatar. They are all movies designed for 3D, that work in 3D, and they're great. Other movies in 3D have proved runaway commercial successes - The Polar Express, for example, took 25% of its takings from just 82 IMAX cinemas - and once can see why other studios would want to try and replicate that; they do so, however, at the expense of quality, as the film market has become over saturated with pointless 3D movies.

It seems that whenever a film franchise has managed to make it to their third instalment, some lazy producer has insisted on making the movie 3D, to save time and effort in bothering to actually name the movie (see Spy Kids 3D or Step Up 3D as particularly poor examples, of both name and film) and it devalues the technology. I'm not the only one to notice this; audience figures for 3D movies continue to dwindle, which contradicts James Cameron's prediction in 2006 that 3D movies would be used to boost audience figures, while even Steven Spielberg (who will release the third Men in Black film in - you guessed it - 3D) has said that filming in 3D wasn't right for recently released War Horse. Others - such as film critic Roger Ebert - have remained sceptical all along.

However, it is not just film technology which utilises 3D. Many pubs seem to be investing in 3D technology to show sports matches, something which is as annoying as it is hilarious, as forty football fans struggle to use their glasses and drink their pints simultaneously, in a failed attempt to replicate what it is like to be at a real football match. Some gaming systems - the Nintendo Wii, the Xbox Kinect, the PlayStation Move - are on a similar 3D vein, creating the same immersive environment that 3D films do - or should do. Why got to a real gym when you can do it at home on your own?

Despite its drawbacks, 3D technology will continue to invade our lives, and it will only be a matter of time before we see 4D technology, which will see no doubt George Lucas sitting behind you at the cinema, poking you in the back of the head.

Close

What's Hot