Dial F for Fad
A useless fact you may not know about me is that I go to the cinema a lot, probably about once a fortnight on average. I’ve been maintaining this habit now for a good 15 years.
Up until this weekend, I had only managed to see one 3D film during that time – a reissue of the particularly lame 3D version of Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder in about 1996. The glasses were of the cellophane-taped-to-a-bit-of-cardboard type, the film itself was dull and the 3D effects (other than a lunging pair of scissors) were a complete non-event. 3D didn’t add anything whatsoever to the impact or enjoyment of the film.
Is that all there is I thought, deciding then and there that 3D was definitely nothing more than a clever marketing fad aimed at getting people away from their 50s tellies. And no wonder it didn’t last - no one would put up with this level of pointless spectacle for long, and particularly not if wearing stupid, uncomfortable glasses remained part of the deal.
So it was with this memory in mind that I went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D on the weekend. I was partly lured by my fondness for the tiresomely inconsistent Tim Burton and 35 years of having to put up with ‘witty’ references to the book, but really I needed to put my past behind me and see the revival for myself. New 3D had to be better than 50s-style 3D.
And the verdict? Well, the the film itself was dull and the 3D effects (other than a lunging cat) were a complete non-event.* 3D didn’t add anything whatsoever to the impact or enjoyment of the film. It is still nothing more than a clever marketing fad, this time aimed at combating piracy and illegal downloads.
So again, I’m going to write off a whole technological development based on viewing one film. Am I being hasty though? Have any of you actually seen a good 3D film?
*The glasses have improved a bit however – you can’t accidentally rip them, but they are filthy. I spent the trailer-time pedantically cleaning the lens with my own lens cleaner and still couldn’t manage to remove the distracting smears.
March 16th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Not seen one of these ‘new’ 3D films as yet (in fact, dont get much of a chance to see a new 2D film these days since Piley Jr came along!)… but what you say is exactly what I expected… I just knew it would be over-rated. Sure the technology is better, and you no longer have the red and blue (i think) lenses, but is it actually any better?? I thought not. They certainly know how to charge for these 3D films too… think my local is pretty much DOUBLE to get in for one. Bargain!
Good to hear i’m not missing anything!!
P
March 16th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
As I’ve never witnessed this phenomenon first hand, I’m actually quite impressed at your thoroughness in giving one go each to the two incarnations of 3D before writing the whole concept off. And I’m quite prepared to take your word for its failings.
I don’t get to the pictures half as often as you (twice a year might be nearer the mark, shameful really) but it’s the Spanish film festival here in Manchester and I’m maybe going to catch a Mexican feature tomorrow whose narrative centres (it says in the programme) on the inner world of the reclusive caretaker of an empty building. Something tells me that the sort of action shots that lend themselves to 3D might be at a premium.
March 17th, 2010 at 12:06 am
I do think people may be writing this off too soon; sound design, colour etc all took time to bed in so 3d will take time too. I saw avatar recently and the trailer for Alice (the 3d didn’t look good on the Burton film) and wasn’t totally convinced avatar but it worked in places. I think 3d will become more subtle over time and mixed with better 3d sound to make for a better experience. I think people like Mark Kermode and other broadsheet critics have been too quick to write off the creativity of film makers. I like a mix of things from the flicks, spectacle as well as drama and more intimate films i think 3d will fit into the mix. That being said the over charging for 3d films is outrageous
Lastly there’s no defence for smeary glasses that’s as bad as the film being out of focus.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Did you see Avatar – yes the film was reheated ideas from James Cameron’s back catalogue in a Roger Dean landscape. But the 3D was played for space and scale – not the usual dropping blobs and balls, giving a taster of what 3D can do
March 17th, 2010 at 9:53 am
3-D does not work for me because I have to wear glasses to watch films. Putting one over the other is uncomfortable and difficult and ruins the enjoyment. I’m convinced it’s a fad.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Mmm, mixed opinions there then…
I think that if BLTP is right and 3D improves, grows and ‘matures’, then Piley and Jonathan will be seeing lots of 3D films very soon – simply because your children will make you! 3D definitely has the market in kids films at the moment and I don’t think that this is likely to change.
Having said that, James Cameron is definitely hoping to change the market what with Avatar being ‘the biggest film ever’. But I didn’t see it. It looked boring and although being a bit of a cinephile, I’m also a fussy, itchy feeted snob who refuses to sit through 3 hours of anything. I think I’ll have to wait til someone more concerned with story than spectacle tries 3D before I venture out again.
It wasn’t so bad wearing double specs, FC. They went over mine fine, it was more the fact that I’m used to looking through pristine lenses, rather than smeared plastic that was the problem.
March 17th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Stretching my mind back a few years here, but prior to the latest batch the only 3d I had experienced in the cinema was Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone with Molly Ringwald. I have no recollection of the quality of the film or the third dimension though, just that the glasses were of the modern polarizing type rather than red/blue.
Of the new ones so far we have only seen Beowulf, which made much play of spears flying out of the screen and dragons swooping overhead. And of course animated Ray WInstone having no clothes on and being obscured every time the dangly bits might have come into view. In that case the glasses fit well over my normal ones, and were clean enough but that was at the start of the latest wave. What annoyed me was that we were able to keep them, but not to bring them back and save the extra admission charge for a future 3d film.
And now Sky are launching 3D tv in time for the World Cup – although you have to have a special new telly as well as the specs.
March 17th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Oohh, Molly Ringwald in 3D Simon – even I’m interested in that! Although the actual film title sounds like a shocker.
So you weren’t tempted by 3D TV then? I certainly don’t fancy wearing 2 sets of glasses whilst lounging on the sofa. Although maybe the future is prescription 3D glasses…
March 18th, 2010 at 11:02 am
yep 3d tellys launched today (i think). how horrid. although the little 3d plankton bit in kew gardens’ aquarium bit is completely brilliant
x
March 18th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Surely the future is holograms projected by R2D2 and no need for extra specs at all.
No, we weren’t tempted, even if the budget would have permitted it. We are going HD on Saturday though!
March 18th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Thanks for the notification. I’ll avoid this film at all costs.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
3D Molly Ringwald, 3D plankton… can it get any better?!
Yes – individual R2D2s! I like it Simon.
And hello Heff, it wasn’t THAT bad. But putting 3D aside, it was probably as pointlessly irritating as Tim’s re-make of Planet of the Apes.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I think you’re partly right to say that this is nothing more than a fad. Oddly, it seems to happen every thirty years – 1950, 1980, 2010.
As a massive film buff, I am very proud to state that I’ve not yet experienced one of these 3D films, nor will I do so. Yes, I can pay an extra £2.50 for the privilege of watching things fly out of the screen at me in 30% less colour than a 2D presentation, but I’ll still be sitting behind some slack-jawed chav chatting to his mates and blinding me with the glare from his mobile phone as he checks it every two minutes, so the money seems slightly wasted.
3D was introduced in the 50’s to counteract the ‘threat’ of television. The movie companies feared that nobody would go to the cinema anymore so they tried to raise their game with 3D.
Now, 60 years later, we find ourselves in the same position with the movie industry terrified that the Internet, TV-on-demand services and suchlike are going to cause the end of cinema as we know it.
Of course, now there’s a big difference – the cinema chains have to make a considerable financial outlay to install the required technology and, as a result, will want to see a significant return on their investment. This suggests to me that 3D movies will be around for a little while longer, at least until the cinemas recoup their money.
Oh, and as an aside, a friend of mine recently overheard someone at his workplace say, “It was amazing watching that film in 3D. I wish we could see in 3D all the time.” I believe the phrase is ‘Facepalm’…
March 19th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Dan, thank you both for your long comment and for reminding me of another complaint about 3D – the colour! It is a lot, lot less vibrant and flatter than standard colour. I watched a bit of the film without the glasses and was stunned by the difference. I really would have thought that they would have adjusted the saturation in the processing or something to account for it, but no.
You’re right that 3D will be continue to be pushed by the companies. It is expensive and they need to recoup their costs. This might, as BLTP suggests above, give them enough time to really develop and make the most of the medium. And people might just really like it! I am reminded of my response to what I thought was a similar fad 2 decades ago – IMAX. It’ll never last I thought, but hey, I was wrong.
From your comments about the cinema going audience, I take it that you don’t go to the flicks very often? I do, but I am such an audience snob that there are only a handful of cinemas in London that I will step foot into. Thank God I have the choice.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
Sadly, I don’t go to the cinema that much anymore, no. If there’s a big event film (Iron Man, Watchmen, Batman, or even *shudders in recollection* Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) then I’ll brave the baying masses, but these days I just don’t see the point. Why pay £8 to sit in a box-room with yapping oiks who can’t put their phones down for more than ten seconds at a time?
Personally, I’m astounded that these people have the disposable income that allows them to fork out nearly ten pounds to sit there and chatter for two hours.
Once, going to the cinema was an absolute treat and out of respect for your fellow filmgoers, you remained silent throughout. Sadly, that respect isn’t there anymore and…bloody hell, I sound like a right curmudgeonly old git. :o(
Right, I’m off to sit in my armchair with a cuppa so that I can mutter to myself about ‘bloody kids’…
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I’m another one who can’t stand sitting in cinemas any more, for similar reasons to Dan. My blood pressure just won’t take it. So it looks like I’m destined to miss out on the 3-D revolution. Though it does seem like it was somebody’s big gamble, to get people back to the cinemas. From the rampant success of Avatar, it looks like it paid off.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
You’re both going to the wrong cinemas. Odeons and Vues are hell on earth yes, but any cinema showing ‘difficult’ films e.g. anything released more than 6 months ago or with subtitles is usually pretty good.
I saw Alice at the Barbican actually with a stack of children – most of whom, interestingly enough, were better behaved than the teenagers and adults surrounding them.
Don’t worry about missing 3D ISBW – you can invest in one of those tellies the others have been referring to!