Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Film Wars: 2D or Not 2D?

 

Pro 3D, Jack Binysh

3D has come of age. After fifty years of absolutely dire horror films and an exile to theme park gimmickry, Hollywood has finally realised the potential of the third dimension. And as a viewing of Avatar, or Pixar’s latest opus Up will attest to, it looks fantastic.

Like any new technology, there are possible pitfalls. 3D will only really work when films are being directed with it specifically in mind. Fail to do so and you’ll give your audience a headache. Try and shoehorn it in at the last minute, as several studios are after seeing Avatar’s box office take, and the effect will be unconvincing and tacky. The difficulties in crafting a good 3D movie do not mean the technique is flawed, but merely that it should be used with care. The effect is right when it is so convincing people can forget about it.

Unfortunately the studios are behind 3D for slightly more prosaic reasons. Hollywood’s current strategy to combat piracy is remarketing cinema as a unique ‘experience’, and 3D films fit nicely with this plan. The 3D effect cannot be pirated, and the average price of a 3D film ticket is £2 more than its cousin. While I find it difficult to argue with a straight face that Warner Bros really need that extra hundred mil there’s no reason this marriage of artistic merit and financial security cannot work. High profile directors have consistently expressed enthusiasm over the technology, with Spielberg, Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson all shooting their next features in 3D. We are in safe hands.

The point is immersion. Of course not every film will benefit from a shiny new dimension. Revolutionary Road would not be enhanced by knowing just how far down said road Leonardo di Caprio is standing (as you may be able to tell I haven’t actually seen revolutionary road), but the potential is there for a truly transcendental experience.

Pro Flatscreen, Luke Partridge

I have always loved films – well no actually that’s not true, Mars Attacks put the five year old me off the whole concept – but aside from that I have always loved films. But my love now stands in jeopardy from a fad; a cheap trick that detracts from the beauty of cinema.

3D has moved on. The ‘look dad that spear just flew straight past my head! Super awesome!’ times are over. What separated Avatar from the crowd of inferior 3D films was time had been spent thinking about immersion rather than titillation. But the problems with Avatar were simple; it was not a very good film. Was there a memorable performance? Did the plot with its thinly veiled metaphors sweep you away? Was it an hour too long? 3D paints over these cracks but they should not be ignored. Film-making at its heart is story-telling and when that comes second, the director’s got it wrong.

And now, if you will, think back over your favourite films. Whether its Lost in Translation or Lord of the Rings can you honestly say they would be improved by 3D. Would that make you love them more? So why does it matter? It matters because it’s hurting everything else, like a giant but highly profitable bull in a china shop. At the moment everyone wants 3D (like Pokémon cards or yo-yos) and the studios will keep producing it. This is to the detriment of other films that could have been made in their place, films that are ambitious but need funding. These films need the help of studios who are now otherwise occupied.

So next time you are at home go and find the drawer that still has that yo-yo, or the Charizard Shiny it felt too difficult to bin, place next to it those 3D glasses that I know you stole from the Cinema. You will make film better if you do.

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles