Latest Comment

The 3-D film fad has gone too far

After the recent re-release of ‘Star Wars: The Phantom Menace’ (1999) in 3-D, I believe that the 3-D fad has gone a bit too far. The disadvantages of 3-D are obvious: hiked-up ticket prices, headaches and awkward pseudo-fashionable 3-D glasses, glasses that will inevitably be turned into fake spectacles by some bright-spark who decides to knock out the lenses, instead of wisely saving them for the next rip-off 3-D blockbuster.

Considering that there was enough controversy over ‘The Phantom Menace’s’ first release, it seems odd that they would re-release it, this time in notoriously gimmicky 3-D. Watchers of ‘Spaced’ will remember Simon Pegg’s hatred of the prequel and subsequent breakdown over his crushing disappointment. His character even rants at a young boy after he asks to purchase a Jar-Jar Binks figurine. Suffice to say, this new 3-D re-release would have Simon Pegg spinning in his grave – that is, if he were dead.

Perhaps we should look on the brighter side of 3-D. For one thing, ‘Avatar’(2009) was beautiful in 3D, as, having seen it in both dimensions at the cinema, I much preferred the more expensive choice and ‘The Final Destination’ (2009) in 3-D added a lot to the already gruesome and unrealistic death sequences. These watershed 3-D experiences are nearly obliterated by films like Michael Bay’s destruction-fest ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’ (2011) in eye-shattering 3-D. Half of the film consisted of meaningless comedy, while the other half was made up of explosions and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley looking attractive in front of explosions – ultimately leaving me with a searing headache and destructive tendencies for several hours afterwards.

The problem with 3-D films is that they try to make unrealistic things seem more realistic. There’s no use in making a film about ancient, mechanical aliens that can transform into vehicles and expecting me to feel a sense of realism, let alone believe that Shia LaBeouf could stand a chance with Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. It doesn’t help that most film franchises that survive long enough to have a third instalment try desperately to revive interest with the added ‘D’.

While 3-D is occasionally beautiful to watch, it is far too often used as a crutch for films negligent of a plotline. The whole 3-D fad seems to favour the awe-factor over a credible story, and expects the average cinema goer to watch with their mouths agape and hands negligently laid in popcorn while the eye-sex resumes. Well, frankly, I find that rather patronising, so I’ll wait however many hours for the showing of this 3-D film in 2-D, thank you very much, and at the normal price of a cinema ticket too – or perhaps I won’t see it at all.

Comments

• An enjoyable article, with much truth. Most people, in my experience, have suffered from headaches after watching a movie in 3D, which leaves me wondering; what are the health implications when watching a 3D film on a regular basis? Surely it is as good for your eyes as it is good for your wallet? (Which is not good, if that statement was unclear.) But I also must agree that there is an ‘Awe’ factor in SOME of the 3D films. 3D Movies I can accept… These new 3D cellular phones however I cannot.

  By Anonymous on 20.2.2024

  If you are unhappy with this comment please refer to our terms and conditions and contact us with any any concerns.