3D isn’t going to save cinema

Stephen Kelly states the obvious:

You may have guessed, but I am not a fan of 3D cinema. I’ve tried. Honestly, I have. I’ve put in the time. I’ve spent the money. I even thought, at one point, there might be a future for us. But no. The main problem, beyond the expense, is that cinema is an immersive medium — one that stands or falls on the suspension of belief and its ability to rip you out of your surroundings. Some berk talking, another eating popcorn too loud, an Adam Sandler film — those are things that snap that suspension to remind you that, yes, you are sitting in a room gawping at a screen. 3D has the same effect: it’s a distraction from what is actually on show; a vandalism of vibrant imagery.

The greatest uses of 3D — Martin Scorsese’s Hugo being a prime example, and the recently released Hara-Kari: Death Of A Samurai being another — have been those with a sense of purpose behind it. Technology has been woven into the film process as an actual story-telling device, rather than just slapped on top for the sake of it. And there lies its biggest problem: a disrespect towards the audience’s intelligence. Did The Avengers (or “Avengers Assemble”, if you want to be an arse about it) really need to be converted to 3D? Does Baz Luhrmann’s take on The Great Gatsby, out later this year, really need to be in 3D? People are not stupid. And they know when they’re being ripped off.