Is there a future for 3D in cinema?

3D has become increasingly popular in recent years but it seems to be at a cross-roads at this moment in time. Will 3D soon become the new standard in cinema? or remain a fun novelty until its demise?

The subject generates many contrasting opinions, but what do you think?

Comment below and make your voice heard.

Screen shot 2013-12-28 at 15.52.19

Advertisements

14 Comments Add yours

  1. personally, I think only a small subset of films are suited for 3D. Most of the 3D adaptations make me dizzy, sometimes to the point that I can’t focus on the movie the way I would like. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s a fad… I think most movies are going to be shown in 3D eventually, but that it just took a while for it to catch on – kind of like BluRay.

  2. For me 3D works for animated or CGI heavy films (which is the same). Other than that I really don’t see the point. Also, I hate wearing glasses over my glasses and it always takes a while for my eyes to adapt so I cry a lot (not tears of joy). Anyway, it looks like 3D is here to stay, but it will be substituted eventually by holograms and then who knows..

  3. thomasjford says:

    It’s a novelty. If used correctly (Gravity) it can be amazing, but mostly it is lame. It’s best left for theme parks really. It certainly won’t ever take over cinema.

    1. aworldoffilm says:

      I agree… but to play devils advocate. Was cinema not just a novelty in it’s early stages. Something just for fairgrounds?

      1. thomasjford says:

        Yeah to a degree, but then 3D has also been a nicely numerous times before as well. I think the fifties and eighties to name but two decades. As long as there is the option of watching a film in either format I don’t think we will have a problem!

      2. thomasjford says:

        Nicely should read novelty!

    2. Harry Calnan says:

      I agree – Gravity set the standard for the use of 3D.

  4. beetleypete says:

    I tried it many years ago, with experiments wearing red and green plastic viewing glasses. I later went to see a film (documentary) at the I-Max in London, but I never found it involving, just annoying.
    I could not imagine wanting to see a film in 3-D, as any film I have ever truly liked, would not be enhanced by this format. I hope it does not become the norm, I really do.
    Regards from Norfolk, Pete.

  5. thycriticman says:

    I honestly despise it, due to remakes being made solely for the purpose of being 3D, and the general annoyance of having to wear the silly glasses. The worst is when 3D is actually in the title of the film. I will not shed a single tear over its demise if the day does come.

  6. 3D makes me ill, I can’t attend screenings that are in 3D. 2D only for me. Hopefully it’s just a novelty that will pass. Give me dusty light and some crackle on the soundtrack and I’m good and happy!

  7. thehousebyredbricklane says:

    3D I feel, only really began becoming popular after the world-wide success of Avatar, in part because most wanted to experience the 3D and 3D film tickets cost more than 2D film tickets. Unfortunately, I think 3D might just become the norm, if only for the reason that it’s a quick way to attain better film gross and as much as films are entertainment, they are also a business.

  8. gregkeenan says:

    I think that people will eventually cotton on the fact that 3D is usually purely for commercial purposes, and soon people will stop paying more money and having to wear stupid glasses while watching a film that has 30% light loss. I understand that film is a business and production companies want to make more money and that’s fine.

    I just feel that the benefits are very small for the consumer, and usually it is retro fitted 3D (like Star Trek Into Darkness) and one can easily tell that it is, it doesn’t add anything to the experience and ends up not being 3D just making the foreground pop out a tiny bit.

    3D ends up working more for grand spectacles but takes away so much during small, dramatic scenes. For example I went to see Man of Steel in 3D (it was rubbish regardless) and the big action set pieces looked great but when Supes was having a heart to heart with someone it was just jarring and off putting. So much so that I took my glasses off for those scenes, and lo and behold it looked pretty much 2D (and a lot brighter).

    On Gravity: I think this is more of an exception than an indication of market trend. Hopefully, it will reveal that emperor has no clothes when it comes to 3D and it will be shown up in lesser films.

  9. I have much the same feelings as everyone above. Which makes me think that the majority of people are fed up with .

    I don’t want to be seen as hijacking this post but I did also write a blog about this on my website if anyone is interested?

    http://loneoakproductions.com/blog/2013/09/12/is-3d-here-to-stay/

  10. Hypersonic55 says:

    I’ve never been keen on 3D films, they cost more on top of your film tickets in the cinema and only a handful of films actually use the technology properly and convincingly. Avatar was the first film to make me say “You know what? 3D it works.” But then after that most subsequent film using 3D were all post-converted loads of ass with pop out or depth to the image.

    I think 3D is a fad and I think after 2012 some people in the world were just waking up to it. Now annoying some filmmakers are trying to push the medium to be the norm and I pray to god that it doesn’t take over because that will be a sad day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s