There isn't a IMAX 3-D where I live. I wish they were more ubiquitous around the UK, but they seem depressingly restricted to London and a smattering of big cities I don't live near.
I personally think it's therefore redundant watching Robert Zemeckis' 3-D Beowulf on traditional 2-D screens. I've heard from many people that Beowulf's a great film -- but without the 3-D, it's nothing special.
3-D has been around since the 1950s, but it's only in the past decade that the technology has really come to life – using technology NASA use to drive their Mars Rover, no less! No more kitsch cardboard glasses, you get designer shades these days.
Films in 3-D were restricted to documentaries in the 1990s, but we're now seeing big studio releases in this exciting format. Sure, Superman Returns and Harry Potter 5 had 3-D sequences as gimmicks, but a new wave of full-3D is being launched.
And that's great! I can't wait to see James Cameron's sci-fi epic Avatar in 2009 -- particularly as it's live-action, not animation -- but the problem is: I don't want to watch 3-D films any other way! What's the point? It would be like watching Shrek in monochrome!
The way I see it, if a film's been constructed around three-dimensions, you're not getting the desired effect if you watch it any other way. It was bad enough when films were bastardized into "pan-and-scan" versions to fit 4:3 TVs, in the decades before DVD brought widescreen ratio's to the home-viewing masses.
Right now, maybe it's best to totally avoid 3-D until it becomes commonplace? Beowulf is apparently good in standard 2-D, and only looks flat and boring if you compare it to the 3-D Ray Winstone slaying monsters in front of your eyes, with blood spurting in mid-air.
After its first week on UK release, Beowulf has taken £2.1 million -- narrowly beaten to box-office supremacy by Ridley Scott's 2-D American Gangster (£2.5m). It would be interesting to see how much of that £2.1 million was taken at 3-D venues -- as Beowulf actually wasn't heavily marketed as a must-see 3-D experience.
somehow, I can't imagine many people drove for hours to a 3-D screen, just to watch a film on a chilly winter's evening -- do you? Or did you?
Well, a film has to lead the way for the 3-D "changeover", but thousands of people like me won't go and see a 3-D film on a 2-D screen -- and that will hurt profits. Cinema chains need to start installing 3-D screens everywhere. But is it worth their while yet?
There's a chicken-and-egg situation here -- as the paucity of 3-D films makes it financially unviable to install expensive 3-D technology! Cinemas will have to take a big loss and hope to recoup their 3-D investment over the next decade. But 3-D is certainly ready to explode into prominence now -- with The Nightmare Before Christmas upgraded to 3-D, Cameron's $200 million Avatar on the horizon, a trilogy of 3-D Tintin films from Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson being developed, and the inevitable 3-D refit for George Lucas' Star Wars saga...
It's only a matter of time before 3-D becomes the filmgoing norm. It certainly can't come soon enough for me! Oh, and good luck trying to pirate a 3-D movie experience, you nasty pirates! An added incentive for studios to invest in 3-D there...
But, oh no. I just realized something. If 3-D cinema becomes the norm by 2015, television is going to look awfully old-fashioned and boring, isn't it? Best start saving now for HD-3D TV...
I personally think it's therefore redundant watching Robert Zemeckis' 3-D Beowulf on traditional 2-D screens. I've heard from many people that Beowulf's a great film -- but without the 3-D, it's nothing special.
3-D has been around since the 1950s, but it's only in the past decade that the technology has really come to life – using technology NASA use to drive their Mars Rover, no less! No more kitsch cardboard glasses, you get designer shades these days.
Films in 3-D were restricted to documentaries in the 1990s, but we're now seeing big studio releases in this exciting format. Sure, Superman Returns and Harry Potter 5 had 3-D sequences as gimmicks, but a new wave of full-3D is being launched.
And that's great! I can't wait to see James Cameron's sci-fi epic Avatar in 2009 -- particularly as it's live-action, not animation -- but the problem is: I don't want to watch 3-D films any other way! What's the point? It would be like watching Shrek in monochrome!
The way I see it, if a film's been constructed around three-dimensions, you're not getting the desired effect if you watch it any other way. It was bad enough when films were bastardized into "pan-and-scan" versions to fit 4:3 TVs, in the decades before DVD brought widescreen ratio's to the home-viewing masses.
Right now, maybe it's best to totally avoid 3-D until it becomes commonplace? Beowulf is apparently good in standard 2-D, and only looks flat and boring if you compare it to the 3-D Ray Winstone slaying monsters in front of your eyes, with blood spurting in mid-air.
After its first week on UK release, Beowulf has taken £2.1 million -- narrowly beaten to box-office supremacy by Ridley Scott's 2-D American Gangster (£2.5m). It would be interesting to see how much of that £2.1 million was taken at 3-D venues -- as Beowulf actually wasn't heavily marketed as a must-see 3-D experience.
somehow, I can't imagine many people drove for hours to a 3-D screen, just to watch a film on a chilly winter's evening -- do you? Or did you?
Well, a film has to lead the way for the 3-D "changeover", but thousands of people like me won't go and see a 3-D film on a 2-D screen -- and that will hurt profits. Cinema chains need to start installing 3-D screens everywhere. But is it worth their while yet?
There's a chicken-and-egg situation here -- as the paucity of 3-D films makes it financially unviable to install expensive 3-D technology! Cinemas will have to take a big loss and hope to recoup their 3-D investment over the next decade. But 3-D is certainly ready to explode into prominence now -- with The Nightmare Before Christmas upgraded to 3-D, Cameron's $200 million Avatar on the horizon, a trilogy of 3-D Tintin films from Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson being developed, and the inevitable 3-D refit for George Lucas' Star Wars saga...
It's only a matter of time before 3-D becomes the filmgoing norm. It certainly can't come soon enough for me! Oh, and good luck trying to pirate a 3-D movie experience, you nasty pirates! An added incentive for studios to invest in 3-D there...
But, oh no. I just realized something. If 3-D cinema becomes the norm by 2015, television is going to look awfully old-fashioned and boring, isn't it? Best start saving now for HD-3D TV...
