I have it on very good authority that Clash of the Titans was only converted to 3D at the very last minute - hence the dire job - because everyone involved was horrified by how dismal the film was and were desperate for anything to tart it up. Sadly it seems to have worked - at least financially and in the short term. This attitude though will surely hasten the point at which audiences become indifferent to 3D as a novelty.

What's 'snood"?

Good for me that I seldom see films other than for entertainment and we have all experienced work in lives which we initially loved but then hated going through the dull mediocrity of the parts we don't enjoy. Do you think 3D detracts Avatars experience or the anticipation for How to train your dragon after watching its trailer in 3D I guess it did for you. Well I find these films engaging and worth my time because they are erm actually fun. Maybe you would do better sticking to commenting on things you like given that you comment less on say the average teen horror flick try watching a few of these maybe they offend you less or maybe given the target audience they provide less of a vehicle for self promotion but thats just one mans opinion.

If 3D is an integral part of the film it gives an artist additional options.

If it is just tacked on for the sake of it, then it isn't much cop. I saw Clash in 2D, as recommended in the reviews I'd read.

3D as a technology however is a big jump ahead of where it was, though 3D CGI cartoons are the main medium at the moment, and Avatar for large periods, is all CGI with a bit of greenscreen.

On the other hand, we should all be grateful this 3D technology wasn't around when George Lucas was making dreadful Star Wars prequels.

Add colour. Films never needed Technicolor. It was the 3D con of the 30s. Totally ruined the The Wizard of Oz.

The whole 3D thing is moot for me; watching such films gives me motion sickness. Apparently, I'm not alone in that which makes me wonder why studios are so enamoured with something that can't be watched by a large section of their prospective audience.

@blacknose

"What's 'snood"?"

They were an 80s fashion gimmick, a sort of cross between a hood and a scarf. Here's a photo of a dog wearing one - no idea why, but it looks (understandably) depressed.

Will "Bringing Up Baby" and "The Lion in Winter" be coming out in 3D?

I absolutely adore Katharine Hepburn.

Cheers.

A snood is a hairnet for beards actually

I'm a wonky-eyed old fart and I'm proud.

Call me paranoid, but the new 3D offensive has a much more sinister side to it than merely fighting piracy and getting bums into cinema seats. Cinematic immersion is a concept straight out of Brave New World. It's the extreme opposite of the Brechtian distancing (a.k.a. alienation) effect. The audience is meant to lose itself passively and completely in the depicted action, being transformed from consciously critical observers to mindless consuming drones.

The Tingler needed the hidden seat buzzers of Percepto to put a spark into its audiences' collective arses.

Not fair. The Tingler is perfectly enjoyable without seat buzzers. The first movie to depict LSD, it's got Vincent Price and an icky monster. What's not to like?

[retro-fitting 3D] just makes a load of "flat" elements look like they're floating around on opposing planes of flatness, as demonstrated by the shallow 3D experience offered by Clash of the Titans.

The cinematic equivalent of a pop-up book.

Make up your mind: do we lose 30% colour or 30% brightness?

It all depends on what type of 3D presentation you're seeing. It's true, the tint of the 3D glasses could theoretically cause a loss in brightness (the effect on colour is negligible), but IMAX 3D presentations in particular use projection technology that significantly increases the brightness of the projected image to compensate. The IMAX 3D presentations I saw of Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon were just as bright with glasses as their 2D counterparts were without.

Other presentation methods such as RealD and Dolby 3D make use of a theater's existing digital projector technology, so the brightness won't be intense as an IMAX 3D presentation. Future upgrades of this technology will improve the brightness of the projected image.

In short, if you want to see a decent movie, make sure it's something that was filmed stereoscopically (rather than just converted) and see it at an IMAX 3D theater.

Right on! I've never cared for the pretentiousness of 2D either and prefer the much more artistic 1D format and the absolute freedom it gives to the true auteur.

Avatar was my first 3D film. Frankly, I found the whole experience underwhelming (though the Buddy Holly specs were cool). I had a headache after about ten minutes and watched much of the rest of the (very tedious) film in blurry 2D.

That said, the cinema-going public are clearly going for 3D in a big way. Why? And how long will it be before the 'novelty' wears off?

ps - Hello to Jason Isaacs.

3-D has potential, and I think writing it off because it's being used to get bums in seats overlooks the fact that Cinemascope (or really, any non-1.33:1 aspect ratio), stereo, digital sound, color, etc. all had the same function at one time.

The reason 3-D hasn't taken hold in the same way is largely a problem of technology. Doing it properly requires synchronized projection and polarized glasses and is more expensive to distributors, which is where the premiums come in. The cheap and dirty way with red-and-blue glasses gives everyone a headache and messes up the color. (Though I think it was used very nicely in the 1961 Canadian film THE MASK.)

I think Avatar uses the technology excellently. It's not a great film, but it's a very good one, and the atmosphere it creates is aided by the element of depth. There's a sense that we are looking into a different world- it's not being thrust out at us.

I LOL whenever I read smurfahontas.
Nice article.

Being the only person in this galaxy and its neighbours not to have seen Avatar, I have had to endure endless tirades from family and friends about the imperative upon me to ensure that I do see it, soon.

But none appears able to tell me exactly why I should see it. None has been able to tell me about an intriguing plot, or an arresting script or any particularly engaging characters. Instead everyone simply raves about the 3-D gimmick.

Which serves only to remind me how right was Aldous Huxley: that most modern consumerists/experiencists can be blinded to a lack of good storytelling by instead simply being able to see "every hair on the bear", so to speak.

@Lastmost

No, you're not the only one who hasn't seen Avatar. And, yes, I have had to endure the same pressure to go and see it.

"You should go and see it. It's really good."

"What's so good about it?"

"Errr ... It's good?"

The Wilsonclans go and see Polar Express in 3D at the Millennium Point Imax in Birmingham. I would rather have seen one of the films about the ISS or dinosaurs, but we saw Polar Express instead as it was the only thing on. The 3D glasses did not fit over my own eye-wear, Mrs Wilsonclan suffered badly from motion sickness and Wilsonclan Minor rated the whole experience a "Meh".

I doubt I will go and see anything in 3D until it resembles the 3D of my beloved science fiction movies - standing there in all its glory without any need for optical prostheses. I can see enough 2D turkeys without having to pay the extras in cost and comfort, thank you very much.

Amen to that... I'm already bored with the flipping 3D. Especially as it seems that the more technical gimmickry there is, the more idiotic the so-called script!

Also, the glasses are very uncomfortable, too large, and they hurt my nose. I won't be going to see any more 3D unless it's some amazig nature documentary. The superheroes et al in three dee can all go to hell.

P.S. Re: Avatar -- it's a childish, cliche-ridden smurf romp.

It may just be that nobody has worked out how to use it yet. It's often the case that it takes a genius to really understand the artistic potential of a new (or not so new) technology and show what can really be done with it. Maybe ten years from now, the new Orson Welles will pick up a 3D camera and do things with it that ultimately make everyone wonder why they ever doubted the value of 3D.

I ain't holding my breath though.

@CissyBlackCat

P.S. Re: Avatar -- it's a childish, cliche-ridden smurf romp.

Probably why I liked it.

I'm with the good Dr. on this one. I went to see Avatar in 2D before seeing it in 3D. It really didn't gain anything by being in 3D. The truth is, a great looking film is a great looking film.

Can't wait for them to do My Dinner With Andre in 3-D.

I don't think rendering a film in 3D in post production "perfectly demonstrates the fraudulence of 3D", rather it underlines the opportunism of the studios and their contempt for the audience. 'Alice In Wonderland' and 'Clash of the Titans' both look terrible in 3D because they weren't shot in 3D and should be held in the same regard as those 'colorized' films of the eighties and nineties were.

A film like 'How To Train Your Dragon' and, despite its debatable merits, 'Avatar' were conceived in 3D and are better indicators of the artistic potential of the format.

Sound and colour were first introduced as gimmicks as was cinemascope and 70mm. Whether or not 3D catches on will depend on whether really talented film makers start to explore its potential. Cinema itself started as a 'cinema of attractions', a train coming toward the screen to frighten audiences etc so the use of gimmicks of this kind is hardly new.

I would be very interested in seeing a Gilliam or a Park Chan Wook or any number of other auteurs play with the format. Whether they will remains to be seen.

I had some time for Kermode as film critic up to this point. Not now.

Time for him to vacate his seat at the kino. A critic who rales against a piece of technology as if it was the devil's creation puts himself in the same skiff as those who lambasted television when it first started.

All his jibes at 3D have the ring of pulpit damnation proclaimed by the high priests of taste and decorum against that flickering black and white screen filled with rotten unimaginative programming interspersed with the test card or the potter's wheel.

Kermode should know better than to stoop to the cheap trick of using the quality of the films to bash the technology. Taking his argument at face value, we should then condemn celluloid film for creating the porn industry, for video allowing it a second life and DVDs for permitting it to live on eternally.

And his shock at those cashing in on the 3D trend is a bit off key. Since when did Hollywood not cash in on a trend?

What is his real beef? Hard to make out. Like television, you don't have to watch it, you don't have to go to a 3D film.

Is it that 3D lowers standards to a point where critics are frothing with indignation? Well, where was Kermode and his ilk with 'Hercules Unchained' the grand daddy of a whole genre that plagued cinemas in the fifties and sixties. Or dare one mention the dire 'Carry on' series or 'The Fast Lady' or anything with Dirk Bogarde playing a dimwitted doctor.

Certainly it is true that Burton's 'Alice' does look odd in 3D. It is quite easy to see that this is not true 3D and as a 3D fan I found that irritating.

Headaches? This is utter nonsense. People get headaches watching 2D films. Reminds me of the complaints made against early cinema about sitting in the dark and watching a bright flickering screen. Back then they also said it was morally degenerate to sit in the dark next to your girlfriend. At least 3D makes it somewhat of a logistical problem to snog in the back row, what with glasses on.

Colour loss? Sorry, but let us remind ourselves of early colour film and the complete lack of colour shading. All those bright reds and greens that made the whole film look unreal. And the ton of make-up each star had to wear under those lights because film ASA was so slow.

The anwser to this rant is as I said, don't go to the cinema showing a 3D film, except of course if you are a film critic that means you are out of a job. Which in some cases is probably a good thing.

Although re Gilliam, I don't know how true this is, but I understand he commented within earshot of James Cameron at this years BAFTAs that his next project was to be ' a 2D film about 3D characters'.

@ castlehaven
Yes, I heard that Gilliam comment too. However, he who goes over budget (and causes genuine headaches) with mediocre films is in this case the wrong person to make the right comment.

You want entertainment in 3D? Go to the theatre, not the cinema!

To anyone who missed it, I recommend Today on Radio 4 for Thursday 8th at about 7.45am:
Radio sports commentry in 3D!

Thanks, harbinger, for your succinct disposal of this nonsensical article.

When you cut through the inaccuracies and exaggerations about brightness, colour and headaches -- all of which seem to be thrown around in a rather desperate attempt to find something wrong with 3D -- we're left with the fact that, hey ho, it's 2010 and here's yet another entertainment technology finding its feet and experiencing some hits, and some misses.

As others have pointed out in this thread, every new technique and presentation method has had its enthusiasts, its innovators, its exploiters, and yes, its critics ... of whom the latter, every single time, includes a small rump of peculiar luddites who utterly dismiss it, often with a tone that seems curiously resentful and personal. Mr Kermode seems to have chosen to take the latter position, and like all before him he will be swept aside efficiently by the massive popular adoption of the thing he professes to hate.

I don't think 3D TV will take off very soon, and I do think it will be a while before film-makers learn the craft of the technique as distinct from the gimmick of it, but the fact is, people have two eyes for a very good reason: we are by nature stereoscopic in form, function and action, and it seems obvious that the future holds a vast array of experiences in 3D. This will include cinema, TV, games (a huge opportunity waiting to explode), various other VR content, not to mention the rapid takeup in medical, safety and military simulations.

In five or 10 years' time this article is liable to quoted frequently, at length - and with considerable mirth.

And yes, as soon as the technology price/quality point is right --maybe three years? -- just watch as 3D porn takes off.

It is not the first time, they try to compensate artistic and intellectual deficiency by headache inducing technology.

---

With a growing anti-gimmicks/anti-trash line-up, I hope, we won't come under fire from the Marketing Frigates.

Most "improvements" to our viewing experience - 3D, HD, even digital television - ignore the capability of the human brain to "fill in the gaps". If you switch between watching a TV programme in analogue or in digital, you may conclude after detailed scrutiny that the programme does look better in digital. However, if you had no choice but analogue, after a while you might ignore the analogue degradations (snowy pictures, ghosting, etc) and concentrate on the story.

You just don't need half of these "improvements".

The particular problem of 3D is that, as Mark Kermode pointed out, there are relatively few images which benefit in any way from the 3D treatment. During the middle of Avatar, I took my 3D glasses off at various points - especially wide panoramic shots - and noticed no difference at all. In fact there were only a handful of shots where the 3D effect was impressive.

Aparrently when Sky tried 3D to cover the Chelsea - Manchester United match, one of these moments was a shot of Alex Ferguson chewing gum.

Not enough to make me rush out and pay hundreds of pounds for a new TV.

Or a Sky subscription, come to think of it.

Right on! I've never cared for the pretentiousness of 2D either and prefer the much more artistic 1D format and the absolute freedom it gives to the true auteur.

They tried 4D at my local cinema - but the scheduling got a little confusing.

LSEscientist

"Add colour. Films never needed Technicolor. It was the 3D con of the 30s. Totally ruined the The Wizard of Oz."

I hope you're joking?

You may jest but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-D_film

*sigh*

I've seen about ten of the new wave 3D films. Novelty is definitely the word. And now they make you pay extra even if you've got a Cineworld Unlimited pass and bring your glasses from the last time. (Unless you sneak in by pretending to book for another film...).

We were told that consumers had to foot the cost for the investment in the new 3D screens. Hmmm... OK, maybe. But are the premiums going to disappear when that capital investment has been paid off? Don't hold your breath.

3D suits the studios as they can ignore tricky to get right things like acting and screenplays by emphasising special effects even further.

They can control the effects to a degree not seen pre-CGI, industrialise their production (break down the various elements into a production line) and reuse the systems used to make them over and over (computers). No need for huge sets, just air-conned offices with interchangeable technicians who work a 9-5 regardless of weather or injuries. No need for stunt actors, no storage of the physical parts, etc etc. It makes huge financial sense (and risk mitigation) to convert more and more of the movie into CGI, and 3D is simply an adjunct to this.

These truely are the "Feelies" of Brave New World by Huxley, movies that have no substance except a vague emotianal buzz to passify the audience. I watched the French Connection last night, and it is a punch in the face compared to anything modern and not a single special effect in sight.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the cliche that movies reached their peak in the 1970s.

Add colour. Films never needed Technicolor. It was the 3D con of the 30s. Totally ruined the The Wizard of Oz.

I think the rot set in when they started putting sound on films. :)

I'm a 3D photographer, or was... I used film at the time, and it was the film that was the reason I dropped it.

Initially I suspected 3D photography would be all about cheap thrills, until I began to see that the photos I was taking had real merit.

I have beautiful photos of my Parents who aren't here anymore, then and my dog, trips to the country etc.

What I saw was that used properly, 3D can be as beautiful as any other format, you can't frown at 3D and say it's all rubbish... We see in 3D all the time, if we have two good eyes, we also hear in 3D.

The problem is making it work, granted that will be tricky, but someone will eventually get it right.

And people should stop thinking of 3D as a cliche, and think about what it could give to an otherwise flat look.

Wolfie!

Interesting that a device championed by realist theorist Andre Bazin as another step along the asymptotic route towards the unrealisable mythic ideal of a total cinema indistinguishable from reality itself should find its biggest use in fantasy and spectacle.

When you cut through the inaccuracies and exaggerations about brightness, colour and headaches -- all of which seem to be thrown around in a rather desperate attempt to find something wrong with 3D

I would agree that 3D film certainly is duller than the 2D equivilant, I'm not sure writer is exaggerating or being inaccurate. I experienced Avatar in 3D and I found it visually stunning, however the story was little boring and reminisant of Fern Gully. But certainly the colour was lacking, i'm yet to watch it in 2D and frankly I'm not sure I'll bother because it was quite boring but my g/f has and stated that it was almost the same. This was a movie that was designed from the outset to be in 3D so while it is visually stunning the adverts at the beginning made me jump and saw wow more at the 3D than I manage to muster for the 3D scenes in the movie itself. I think my reaction to avatar would be the same if I had seen it in 2D so therefore I am left with the notion that 3D is not worth the expense.

I think the point is that 3D is a gimmick, which is true, the excuse that you and the other poster seem to use is that it is in its infancy as a medium. Which from the article is shown to be a lie.

When I think of all movies going over to 3D in the future I wonder why I might want to watch a ROMCOM or Drama in 3D, at the moment I am more than satisfied with 2D. Why would I want to watch a movie that has been retrofitted to 2D? And the point Mark made on his show the other week about the Clash of the Titans director "envisioning" his movie in 3D but shooting in 2D made me laugh....I envision my whole world in 3D you know...because well it is. If a movie has a good story line, excellent acting and is well shot it will do well, however Hollywood in recent years seems to be struggling to come up with substance over style.

Marks point regarding PC games I think has some merit, most games are already 3D already and I could see that as a totally imersive experience as you participate as a user also.

"... which sounds suspiciously like a rollicking 3D remake of Caligula."

Absolutely, the future for 3D lies in pornography. All those protrusions and rounded bits displayed in their full glory.

Real life is in 3D and it sucks too.

Your article was bordering one of those artsy fartsy, "the world is full of idiots, what is needed is for the cinematic art form to be taken more seriously".

However, I do have to agree with majority of what you said. Avatar 3D was fantastic, mindblowing even, However I was sucked in and went to Alice and Wonderland, whcih was absolute crap!

It is clear that hollywood is threatened by other forms of enterainment mediums, but is not very clever to produce these rubbish movies for a quick buck as it will not be long until consumers catch on and run a mile.

Mark, you are right!

KatarinaBathbun, me too. I've only seen one 3D film - Ice Age 3 - and I had to take the glasses off and watch the rest of the film as a slight blur.
And nothing on this earth will get me to watch Avatar. I've never seen a James Cameron film that didn't bore me shitless.

Why would I want to pay more to see a film whilst getting a blinding headache?

And am I right in thinking 20% of the population can't actually get the benefit of the 3D technology due to problems with their sight?

I remember as a child getting into the cinema for 6d, but it didn't seem to make any difference to the films except you got two of them and a Pathe News. Oh and a belt around the ear-hole if you cheeked the usherette.

I was very disappointed in Tim Burton's "Alice" in 3D, and having read this article realise why it was so poor. It was never meant to be in 3D. Didn't stop the cashier readily charging the extra two quid for a sub-standard product.

Whatever happened to the idea of holographic movies?

Right on! I've never cared for the pretentiousness of 2D either and prefer the much more artistic 1D format and the absolute freedom it gives to the true auteur.

Nice to see a fellow Flatlander on CiF!

Sometimes a more convincing con than others. Granted.

I'd be interested to hear what people regularly involved in film making think of it. Effects the dynamics a bit I would guess.