Ah, 3D; the debate continues. Does it make for a richer, more interactive cinematic experience? Certainly for the big blockbusters it has its pluses, but isn't that where it should stay? The thoughts of it creeping outward and consuming all manner of media is enough to put you off it forever. I for one am fed up grappling with the glasses required for 3D viewing, trying to figure out how to position the set of shitty spectacles on my head, on TOP of the glasses that I already need to see the damn film in the first place. This is not something I want to deal with on a daily basis.
James Cameron disappoints me when he quite rightly predicts that 3D is where everything is inevitably headed, like not just the big Robert Downey Jr starring actioners, but ALL entertainment. Is he on the money? Probably, yes. But what's wrong with 2D anyway? I don't know that I want to feel like I'm IN the movie, not all of the time, and I'm also not keen on the idea of a Hollywood production playing out like an episode of Eastenders.
Shot in 3D, and at 48 frames per second, Peter Jackson's first installment of his next big thing, post LOTR (The Hobbit) was so realistic and so crystal clear that for the first few minutes it almost felt cheap. Eventually though your eyes do adjust and it no longer feels like Bilbo and Gandalf are discussing life's great adventures in Albert Square. Still though, how close to the action do we want to get?
Do we want to see our movies and our TV in the same we we see the world around us?
Speaking to The BBC, Cameron argued: "For me, it's absolutely inevitable that entertainment will be 3D. It'll all be 3D eventually, because that's how we see the world... That's my answer based on faith, but it's actually quite logical."
Logical, yes. Sucky? Also yes.
Thoughts?
