Opinion: Why 3D Is Unnecessary

Opinion: Why 3D Is Unnecessary

3D hurts my eyes. It gives me a headache, it makes me feel ill and most sickeningly of all, it raids my wallet moreso than an already expensive ordinary ticket price.

Don't worry, this won't be an unreserved rant at the cinematic tool. There are some advantages of 3D, but they are simply heavily outweighed by the disadvantages. Let's have a look at why 3D should be scrapped in favour of the normal film reels that many prefer.

Profit: $2,782,275,172. Blimey.

The sad truth is that since the release of Avatar in 2009, 3D has been like that newcomer to the party who had a little too much to drink and is now overenthusiastically hitting on every single person in the room. Audiences lapped up its arrival (Avatar is currently the highest grossing movie of all time worldwide) because James Cameron's sci-fi about the Na'vi living on the fictional planet of Pandora utilized the groundbreaking technology of 3D. Slap the glasses on and see that colourful world in 3 dimensions right before your eyes. Oh what fun it was to see all those people wave their hands in front of them, trying to catch the flowers that simply weren't there!

Yet the appeal was first ruined for me by the extra cost. Even owners of Unlimited Cards for certain cinemas, which grant you access to as many movies as possible for a small payment per month, have to pay extra for a 3D. Not exactly 'Unlimited' then is it? It is currently an extra £2.10 to get into a 3D showing of a movie - add to that the price of 3D glasses which are at least 80 pence and you're spending almost £3 more than you usually would for a perfectly enjoyable experience from a normal movie reel. That's before you even get to the extortionate food prices.

Oh, how exciting...

The fact is that, in a lot of 3D movies, not every scene is even converted to 3D. In fact in some cases, vast majority of the film is still in 2D, despite your extra costs. The action scenes often make use of your goofy glasses, sure, but most of the film is just as easily watched without them. I noticed this with Prometheus in particular. Where most of the film is full of dialogue and mysterious, slow (boring) walks through caves, the 3D is completely unnecessary. Ooh look, that rock is in 3D. Great.

Animations are usually an exception to this rule, with their 3D abilities available for almost all of the film due to their nature. Toy Story 3 was in 3D for the vast majority of its running time, as was Tangled. 

Even movies that don't look particularly action packed are bringing the tool into their film-making techniques. The Great Gatsby, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio and is set for release on Boxing Day this year, is going to be in 3D. Anyone who has read the book will know that the story is relatively void of any action scenes, with all the conflict coming from emotional dialogue between the characters of Tom, Gatsby and Daisy. Is it really necessary to distract from a brilliant story like this classic by wearing a set of silly glasses?

Lightsaber in yo' face!

Add to that the re-releases of older movies; most recently Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3D in February this year. All six Star Wars films are set to be re-distributed after a 3D conversion to each. Disney have also followed this trend by releasing some of their old classics such as Finding Nemo, The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Many more are planned to hit cinemas for the second time in their legacies, all having been converted to 3D. I really really want to believe that the movie studios are simply sending a gift to their fans - "remember when you watched this on video when you were a kid? Hey, now watch it on the big screen!" - but I feel like the honest truth is that they're looking to make a quick buck. I would much rather see The Lion King in the cinema in 2D than distracting 3D.

Still, 3D isn't all bad. Some people do enjoy its format, especially kids. Ice Age 4 was visually enjoyable in 3D (shame about the script), and it was clear that a lot of time and effort had been put into the animation to make it fun; and a flipside of the re-release coin is that 3D is always another excuse to watch your favourite animated classics again. 

Like I said, however, these are very rare positives, and the truth is that movies are only produced in 3D to make a bit of extra money on top of its already costly ticket sales. Would Avatar have been the highest grossing movie in the world - ever! - if the extortion of 3D wasn't an option? Would The Dark Knight Rises have beaten the profits of The Avengers already had the latter not been available in 3D? I wonder.

Overall, it's really apples and oranges. Some like it, some don't. To me, it's simply a gimmick designed to be sneaky and increase profits while unfortunately delivering aches to my head and my wallet. Directors and producers need to have some integrity and stand by their original film-making goals - or perhaps they can't see that clearly enough behind their 3D glasses.

By Dean Johnstone