Last year, all of the major television distributors announced that they would be releasing some form of 3-D television in 2010. There was understandably a lot of excitement about the possibilities of what could be achieved with such technology as the entertained world was high on the visual majesty of James Cameron’s Avatar.
Even naysayers such as myself were wowed by the immersive possibilities of the big screen technology. And while Avatar may have been in development for around 10 years, the fact that this was the first film to make use of properly immersive 3-D was inspiring and filled with hope: if this was only the first instance, how much better could future iterations be?
Unfortunately, if the 3-D films since Avatar are anything to go by, this hope leans more towards bitter disappointment than raising the bar. Hollywood went mad for post-conversion 3-D movies, with several tent-pole films (at least in intention) receiving this unfortunate treatment which doesn’t do any favours for championing the technology. Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender spring to mind as examples of failed post-3-D conversions.
Studios expect to be able to laugh all the way to the bank with the increased ticket price of 3-D films, but audience members such as myself are questioning the validity of the technology. Even computer-animated films that are created from the ground up with a 3-D end result in mind don’t resonate with me in the same way that Avatar did.
While watching Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole earlier this week, the latest computer-animated film presented in so-called 3-D, I was underwhelmed by the addition of a third illusionary dimension. In fact, unless objects flew close to or ‘through’ the screen, I didn’t notice the third dimension at all.
I now have taken the stance that there are few films that I would have an interest in forking extra money out to view in lacklustre 3-D. Even the latest Resident Evil film, which boasts that it used the same shooting technology as Avatar in its trailers, did not sport the same level of immersion that my multiple experiences with James Cameron’s movie produced.
Maybe the novelty has worn off or perhaps I’m really over the 3-D hype, but the current 3-D releases aren’t doing any favours for future films that may actually make proper use of the technology.
What do the rest of you think?
Popular Science has been a leading source of science, technology and gadget news since 1872. With up-to-the minute latest space news, insightful commentary on the new innovations and concept cars ...if it's new or future technology you'll find it at popsci.com.au.
