Kermode Uncut: The Death of 3D Replies

www.bbc.co.uk/markkermode.

I recently predicted that contrary to contemporary hype 3D will not be the default mainstream movie experience in two years time. In fact I maintain that by then 3D will have reverted to its right and proper status as a sideshow gimmick. But with Werner Herzog producing a 3D movie, The Cave, and the reversioned 3D Titanic looming on our cultural horizon, you have kindly let me know your views on the matter.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Avatar
• bbc
• blog
• Bride Wars
• critic
• David Lynch
• film
• Harry Potter
• James Cameron
• kermode
• mark
• Milla Jovovich
• Park Chan Woek
• Paul Thomas Anderson
• Paul W S Anderson
• Resident Evil 3D
• Terry Gilliam
• Titanic
• Werner Herzog

[Hughezy]

if every film is 3D, where's the attraction?

[coasterman16]

@Hughezy 2D films :P

[ToneSpectra]

@Transformers2themax Me too, but the problem is trying to give everyone a 3D image from a single screen. How is that ever going to work perfectly enough? Each eye needs an entirely seperate image adjusted for your particular distance from eye to eye. 3D is capturing the depth of an image, that's all. Everything else is just hype and misuse of technology. But if humans return to the moon, imagine being able to experience exactly we'd see walking on it but without a helmet!

[Transformers2themax]

@ToneSpectra I have more of an experience watching 2001: A Space Odyssey projected in film at my local arthouse cinema every year than anything I've ever seen in 3D.

[smalllions]

HUGO

[ToneSpectra]

@Colt2571 Yes, and when we're still seeing spokes on wagons going backwards, the frame-rate seems even more absurd. I really think 3D needs a pioneer who can use it without making a point of 3D. I can't get my head around why people have a problem with the concept of capturing depth. People who say it's a gimmick don't seem to fully grasp what 3D is, and think it's simply to make objects 'come out of the screen', simply because that's how it's been used.

[ToneSpectra]

Unfortunately, most people only really care about dialogue and story, everything else being secondary or even a distraction to them. That is, they see images as merely a means to tell stories rather than to explore new visual worlds, so it's no wonder few people care about great cinematography or the potential of 3D imagery. 

[ec123456789able]

when i first saw the ''The Death of 3D'' video blog by Mark Kermode, i thought he was just being a stubborn anti-3D person.

however after 10 months i think it has become clear that he was right all along, 3D is already on the decline 10 months on and Mark was right, i should have had more faith :)

Mark Kermode is one of the best critics out there, it is rare i disagree with his views.

[smalllions]

@Colt2571 good point. I think its premature to call 3d a gimmick. Yeah, Studios now are jumping on the bandwagon, and post-converting films. But there are some very impressive examples of 3D filmmaking. u2 3d, Avatar and most, if not all of pixars/dreamworks films are actually BETTER in 3D. Plus like you said they'll be shooting in 60fps in a few years, and also theres the very real possibility of glasses-less 3d tvs in a few years. Once it become common in homes. People may demand it!

[Colt2571]

people are ignorant...the reason 3D has not been effective, or barely effective is because of the frame rate its being shot at...24fps is too low a frame rate because of the stereoscopic view, giving people headaches, and making it look like a pop up book... Jackson is shooting the Hobbit at 48fps 3D to correct this issue, and Cameron will shoot avatar 2 at 48 or 60fps...Kermode is ignorant because the problems with 3D are technical, NOT aesthetic...it has not been given a fair shot.

[andgadoline]

3d IS NOT 3D - what your watching is the film equivilant of a pop out book.

[ogfunk187]

Terry gilliam's a genius!