I began writing this post a few days ago after posting a few questions to Twitter. I had been meaning to document my take on 3D cinema for some time, and as I finally sat down to get stuck into it, I soon realised that if I was going to respond to the comments that I had received both thoroughly and thoughtfully, it was going to take some time.
So, I’ve broken down my argument into a few main areas, and I’ve decided to go all Harry Potter and split up my post into a few chapters, which I’ll publish each Christmas for the next few years. Well. Maybe a week or so apart… Week 1, plain and simple, 3D is a gimmick.
Part 1: 3D – It’s a Gimmick
With the current trend being towards 3D cinema, I remain unconvinced. And here is why…
First and foremost, it’s a gimmick. Take a look at the list of 3D releases over on Wikipedia, and try and pick out the truly outstanding 3D films. By this, I mean the films that truly could not have been released in 2D. I urge you to scroll down that list and try to pick out a single one. I can already here the Avatar crowd inhaling in preparation for a put-down. Hold on a second though. Keep scrolling. Pick me out another one… Hmm. Quite.

Films like Saw 3D and Glee: The 3D Concert Movie are about as gimmicky as you can get, and if you scroll down to the most recent films, along with the as yet unreleased ones, there are a fair number of re-releases and 3D conversions in the pipeline. Why is that? Am I a cynic for implying that studios are looking for an easy payday? Does the use of 3D for an added bit of shock value in already tired franchises such as Saw and Final Destination really justify the additional ticket cost? I’ll let you make up your own minds on that one, but for me, the answer is a resounding ‘no’.
Back to Avatar then. Some might say that the film couldn’t have been made without the much lauded stereoscopic 3D camera technology that James Cameron put so much into developing. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have worked in 2D. After all, Avatar was released in 2D. And it did bloody well.
![]()
Unfortunately, the industry does not keep a breakdown of the admission numbers for films released in both 2D and 3D, only a running total of the gross profit made from all releases (this alone astounds me…). However, cinema stats website Box Office Mojo released an article back in February 2010 entitled ”Avatar’ Claims Highest Gross of All Time’, at which point the film had made a gross total of $601.1 million in the US, and a worldwide total of $2.075 billion, and the writer goes some way to break down the tickets sales. After some estimations and guess work, they came up with the following estimated (US) figures for viewings in each release format:
3D: 38.7 million, 2D: 15.2 million, IMAX: 6.8 million, totalling 60.7 million.
Despite this old information (the film went on to gross over $760.5 million at the US box office), it appears that around 25% of cinema-goers still chose to view the film in 2D. Ok, so a quarter might not sound like that many. But lets take a look at DVD sales. To date, in the US, the 2D DVD version of Avatar has shifted just under 10.5 million copies, a US record. Not too shabby. Evidently, people still thought Avatar was a great movie whether in 2D or 3D.

It is an interesting question then, as to whether Avatar would have done as well as it did, if it was just another 2D release. So much hype was built up around it because of the new 3D technology involved. Were ticket buyers going to see Avatar ‘the movie’, or were they going to see Avatar ‘the 3D spectacle’? The Box Office Mojo article makes an interesting point, that although the gross profit made by Avatar was record breaking, the estimated number of admissions were approximately half of those enjoyed by Titanic, the previous record holder. It is wholly unfair to imply that Avatar is a gimmick movie, however I feel that it perhaps enjoyed more success than it perhaps deserved due to the 3D related hype generated around its release.
I feel like I’ve been bashing Avatar a bit so far, but I intend the opposite. It is, for me, the singular example so far of a credible 3D production. However, without too many more ‘credible’ productions on the horizon (save the inevitable Avatar sequels), I can’t see how 3D can still be lauded as the future of cinema. Once the bubble of the easy money cash-ins has burst, I feel that 3D will fall by the wayside.
In response to some of the comments I had via Twitter, @TweetAlexM threw Tron Legacy a lifeline, saying that he enjoyed the fact that 3D was only employed within the computer world, and as such served some sort of narrative purpose. Unfortunately, having not seen Tron in 3D I don’t feel able to comment properly, however this does sound more like an appropriate use of 3D.
I seem to share the same sentiments as those belonging to @BigArt_Jim, who “rated (3D) for Avatar and found it genuinely immersive. Didn’t at all for HP (Harry Potter). Think if it was made for 3D then it’s all the better”. This also touches nicely on another topic that I’ll be touching on – the upconversion. But that’s still to come.
What do you all think? Am I being too harsh by criticising any use of 3D that is not either essential, or for some artistic purpose? After all, what is so wrong with a little gimmick now and then..
Still to come:
Money, glasses, darkness, focus, animation vs. live action, and human evolution. Until next time.


