I’m not going to bore you with another 3D post. In short, my opinion is thus: I’m not outright against it, but recognise it is a cynical money-making plow that has yet to really add anything to any movie (with the possible exception of Avatar). I just noticed something today which indicates we may have hit the tipping point. And it isn’t the news of an Oscar-baiting drama like Precious being rendered in 3D like I thought it might be. It’s the fact that Clash of the Titans is being advertised as “also in 2D”. It’s in small print in all the ads, but it seems to suggest that the standard movie-viewing experience has now become the smaller, optional one. Something for the cinema-completest rather than the default way of viewing the film. I remember not even last year when rendering a movie in 3D was a selling point of itself, a quirk. Now it appears that we should be treating it as standard for these films, with the 2D screenings being essentially sideshows and extras.
Some would rather stare at Medusa's face than watch the satndard 2D version...
I’m fairly sure that Avatar may have used the same “also available in 2D” line, but there’s a huge difference between Avatar and Clash of the Titans. It might not seem much (in fact, it likely seems very little), but this I think this may be the moment that the impact of 3D has truly sunk in for me, with 2D screenings now being a curiousity and an afterthought, with 3D the norm rather than a bonus.
Filed under: Movies | Tagged: 2D, 3d, also available in 2D, also showing in 2d, avatar, cinema, clash of the titans, films, Movies | 17 Comments »
