Monday, 6 September 2010

The One Where 2D Wins By A Landslide

2D it is then.

Thankfully the low vote tally on the Blog itself, was joined by a 2D thumping on the App.

Hooray for smart phones.

There's a couple of reasons as to why I wanted to do this vote.

I knew it wouldn't capture the imagination. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's vote fatigue. Maybe it's my ill advised midweek rant, that posted with out me wanting it too - making me look even more of a spoilt brat than normal. Maybe it's that people feel it's not even a debate.

Well, here's the facts...

As I write, 3/10 of the top grossing movies of all time, were released in this last year. In an economic downturn. When cinema takings in general are a concern.

Of those films, Avatar has taken $2,756,193,500. That's over $1Bn more than second place.

Second place is Titanic. Thats getting a re-release to mark the anniversary. In 3D. It will probably take Avatar again, and become the #1 grossing movie of all time again. (They will both had had 2 cinema jaunts, so, alls fair in love and war).

Scroll down the list and you have Alice In Wonderland. So-so to poor reviews. $1,023,285,206. What's that sound? That is the collective sound of Hollywood shrugging its shoulders. 

Now, that totally dampens the theory that 3D is all about quality. 

You won't hear that argument from me, anyway. But is this the 3D that came around first time round? Or when we got lumbered with Friday 13th 3D, Jaws 3D? No. The figures speak a different language.

I saw Clash Of The Titans, Alice, Toy Story 3Last Airbender and Piranha 3D in the last few months. None moved me. None utilized the potential. Some I even watched with the glasses down. I had @DomCokes voice in my head saying, "look how it's saturated the colour". 

Does that mean Hollywood is milking it? 


I saw Toy Story in 3D and 2D, and love the film, best of the lot for me, it was far better in 2D.

There's ways around the cash argument, though.

If you love films, and go to the cinema a lot, get an unlimited card. Most cinemas do it. £1.50 uplift to see a movie in 3D? Done.

Does it mean theres no scope for class within 3D films?


As I write, Spielberg, Scorcese and Del Toro are all making 3D movies. Are you going to argue with those guys?

Me neither.

If even they are not your favourite, they are 3 (Cameron is 4), of the biggest and most important Directors in the world. They could tell Hollywood to do one if they wanted. No one made Cameron make Avatar in 3D. He spent years perfecting the cameras. This is an investment.

There's a compelling argument for 3D. I'm watching England as I type... would I rather it was in 3D? 

Sort of, yeah. Why not?

Maybe it's me. 

I'm fairly young, but have watched a lifetime of movies and sport to know 3D can't hurt these things. 

If done properly, and I'm sorry, Avatar was done properly, it can take you away.

I had lunch with someone in their 50s. He said Avatar was the first time since Star Wars where he felt he was taken to another Planet - another world.

He qued round the block for Star Wars. It was an event.

People need to wake up that Avatar 2 is going to be an event on that scale.

I'm told the glassless 3D will/may never take off. There is a "sweet spot", where the viewer needs to sit. How does that work when The Ledgers© are around to watch footy... or play a Ledger in 3D?

Gaming. Yeah, gaming.

Anyone that's seen the demos will know it may be the saviour.

Giving you depth, as your car tries to handbrake turn around a corner.

Bullets whizzing passed you on Kill Zone 3.

There's potential there, no doubt.

What it lacks, that films don't, is the big names behind it. 

EA have their doubts.

Get over that hurdle, and get... say... Call Of Duty in 3D, people will listen.

Because, like it or not, if 99% of the world is playing that in 3D, and it's "your thing", you won't want to be missing out. Watching Eastenders in 2D. 

*Runs off crying like a girl, begging Mrs T to let him get a 3D TV*

No comments: