Sure, you get the slight excitement of the more dramatic moments of the filmbeing slightly closer in proximity to your face, but once you've experienced itfor the first time, it loses its initial excitement. You basically end upspending an extra £3 for a pair of plastic, uncomfortable glasses that don'tsit on your face properly. To be frank, now that I am being charged £7 for anoverpriced adult cinema ticket, that's not money I'm willing to part with.Also, if you have seats in the front few rows you aren't even able toappreciate the 3D effect as the film goes straight over your head- literally,that is.
Admittedly, animated films are (pardon the cliché 'broughtto life' with the dynamics of 3D and, for cartoon films, I have to agree thatit can make it more visually effective. I have seen films like Toy Story 3 andAlice in Wonderland in 3D and thoroughly enjoyed them, so by no means am Isaying let's get rid of it, just let's stop changing films that simply don'tneed it. Avatar was a cinematic phenomenon when it flew onto our screens,earning over $77 million in its opening weekend in the USA; everyone imploredme to go and see it because of the visual experience you would receive, thatsort of situation I can understand.
What baffles me is when perfectly decent films are shown in3D for no apparent reason. Let me give you an example: as a Harry Potterfanatic, when the final instalment was released a year ago I went to see thefilm for the long loved characters and to enjoy the climax of the stories,which have been alive for so many years, not at all because it was the first ofthe series being released world-wide in 3D. I saw it twice, in both dimensions,and my conclusion was this: well-produced and genuinely amazing films do notneed to be shown in 3D. Films should be appreciated for their content and theirability to engage an audience, without the added dimension. If it's a goodfilm, it shouldn't need it. Similarly, this year saw the release of Titanic 3Dand this is something I still don't quite grasp. You've seen the film hundredsof times; you probably own it on DVD or good old video, yet some peopleactually paid to see it again in cinemas. Maybe it's just because I'm lazy andwould rather sit in the comfort of my home in my pyjamas, eating reasonablypriced food, than make the effort to go the cinema. So, Rose and Jack reach outto you from the screen in this new version - am I the only one who doesn't seethis as a big deal? If you want Leonardo Di Caprio closer to your face, sit nearerto your TV screen and save some money!
Are 3D films really necessary? In my opinion: no. They weregreat 5 years ago when they were shiny and new but today I just see them as aninconvenience or perhaps I have simply outgrown them. And don't even get mestarted on 3D TV; if you think I am going to sit in my living room with a pairof plastic glasses on, you have another thing coming! Invent 3D without theunsightly accessories and then maybe, just maybe, you will have my attention.