I went to see UP in 3D at the Odeon in Brighton on Monday night. Obviously it's a great film, but what did the 3D add? Well in the case of UP I was relieved to see there weren't too many gratuitous moments that I wouldn't expect to see in the normal version and the nature of the film lends itself to the extra feelings of vertigo. But you soon get used to the effect.
Films that REALLY work in 3D are created specifically as experiences first and stories second, like the big IMAX ones. What concerns me is that the studios will start making films that ONLY work in 3D as a stick to make people go back to the cinema to watch film. And more worrying is that this is some sort of answer to piracy.
Are 3D films harder to copy? I don't know, but it begs the question 'what is the experience like at home?'. The answer is probably OK, if you have a decent home cinema setup, but it won't be great for the average Joe. We'll be able to see how the public reacts when Channel 4 goes all 3D for a week this autumn.
A couple of years ago Peter Jackson was saying 3D was the future for all of his productions including next year's The Hobbit (as well as a plan to convert the The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy - no doubt with a big screen re-release). Fortunately it sounds like his director Guillermo Del Toro has now confirmed this not to be the case. Which is a big relief because The Hobbit does not need to be a 3D gimmick. Not to be outdone James Cameron is remaking Titanic in 3D as well as a bunch of other projects that I don't want to see.
Now, I'm all for new technology adding to the film experience, especially one that gives me an excuse to wear sunglasses indoors, but I don't want every film made to be a 3D spectacle (Although Jane Austen in 3D might be better). I just want to watch a good movie.
I'll be watching The Culture Show tonight on BBC2 where bequiffed critic Mark Kermode will be hosting a debate on this subject.
