To Be or Not To Be 3D

There’s no current debate in film so contentious and so divisive as “3D or not 3D.”  Writer Maximus Clarke (a name I would kill for to call my own) contends that love it or hate it, you better get used to it in this fascinating article on the history and potential of 3D movies.

Whatever side you find yourself on in this debate, it’s hard to contend with the historical record that change is never fully embraced; it is often fought, hated, or just downright avoided.  It’s also hard to contend with directors you admire, Ridley Scott for example, saying he’ll never make another 2D movie again.

Personally, I’m all for preserving the director’s original vision and intent for a film.   So if a director takes the time to film his or her movie in 3D, and it’s a movie I want to see, I’ll see it in 3D.  But if it wasn’t, if the 3D was an afterthought, forget about it.  I’ll save my money and see the movie the same way the director and cinematographer saw it when they filmed it.  I love Titanic and Star Wars, but I’m not even a little bit excited about their upcoming 3D re-release.  I’d be more excited by extended cuts of the film being re-released in theaters.

Clarke contends that 3D is a fledgling technology.  On that point I agree completely.  It’s in a rather awkward place right now, with many filmmakers not fully understanding how best to use it (or use it at all).  With further exploration into the field, I’m sure it could become something really special and eventually, something completely commonplace.  But for now, I remain utterly skeptical.


About Scott

Writer. Day Dreamer. Narnian.