After recycling Mark Kermode's opinions on 3D cinema for a while, I finally went to see a 3D film of my own. Some might argue that since time is a dimension, we have been watching film in 3D for quite some time now so perhaps it should really be called 4D. But since 4D is a Channel 4 series, actually quite popular in Finland, detailing the more freakish elements of society, I'll stick with 3D.
The film we went to see was Ice Age 3, which follows in the tradition of third films being 3D which dates back at least as far as Jaws 3D and probably further back. This makes this particular 3D feel like a Gimmick already. There have been other gimmicks in cinema - John Water's "Odorama" is one that I feel glad to have missed out on. But 3D in it's current incarnation is being sold as the future of cinema although I don't see it myself.
I went to see Superman Returns in the Imax a few years back. That film only had a small number of scenes in 3D which meant that the glasses had to be put on and taken off constantly. The 3D parts felt like they were in the film purely in order to be 3D a 3D film - they added nothing to the film, which would have worked fine without those scenes. I will admit that the sight of Superman apparently flying above the cinema audience is impressive. Unfortunately on at least one occasion it was a Superman with no feet flying above an audience. Cinema, especially super hero films, is supposed to be about escaping into a different world. Nothing drives home the fact that you are watching a film in Manchester as opposed to fighting evil aboard an asteroid than seeing half a superman and half an audience at the same time.
There are other problems with 3D. The glasses you have to wear are pretty uncomfortable - we all had indentations in our faces after coming out of the cinema. It's also more expensive - €12.50 here in Finland, which is €2 more than usual. It seems that this more than covers the
cost of the projectors and the glasses you need, although the film industry itself
denies a rip-off.
Ice Age 3 was a pretty terrible film so I was able to judge the 3D on it own. There were definitely some nice images and effects and I could see how it could be made into a pretty impressive spectacle. But at the moment I just can't see the point in 3D cinema. It doesn't add anything to the film viewing experience and I can't see it being a success. For all that, James Cameron's Avatar might show me to be wrong when it's released later this year.
Next week: How the time travel aspects of the new Star Trek film don't make sense and how Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure shows that time travel in a film usually renders the rest of what you've just seen
largely pointless (although in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, it's genius!).