Despite disappointing 3D ticket sales for a slew of recent blockbusters, the wheels haven't fallen off the stereoscopic bandwagon just yet. At least, that was the message coming from movie makers at the recent Big Screen film festival in London.
"It's still early days; give 3D a chance," assorted film makers moaned. But patience appears to be growing thin. Box-office returns continue to indicate that an ever-increasing number of us, tiring of 3D and the associated high ticket prices, are seeking out 2D showings of 3D movies instead.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides did just 47 per cent of its US business in 3D. Kung Fu Panda 2 managed even less, at 45 per cent. If consumers are already falling out of love with the technology, the impact on both Hollywood and the home-entertainment market could be huge.
Too early to panic, say experts
Speaking at the Big Screen debate on 3D cinema, Dan Lemmon, visual effects supervisor at special-effects house Weta Digital, suggested some drop-off was inevitable as studio expectations had been set too high, both creatively and commercially. "Avatar was a landmark film, ahead of its time," he said.
Matt Bristowe, head of production at stereoscopic post-production house Prime Focus, suggested it was still too early to predict where 3D is going. "I think we've already begun to move on from the period when film executives had a knee-jerk reaction and wanted to do everything in 3D," he said.

When quizzed as to why Rise of the Planet of the Apes was shot flat, Lemmon, who worked on the film's remarkable special effects, said there were compelling reasons to stay with 2D. "Shooting in 3D is just much more expensive," he said. "The process takes longer and the cameras are heavier. There's not an infinite budget available. We wanted to put the money into the apes, not immersive 3D."
Sometimes 3D just isn't appropriate, Lemmon said.
Creative potential not yet harnessed
Bristowe insisted that it's still early days for stereoscopic technology, saying its creative potential has yet to be realised.
"Film makers can do many things to enhance a story, by adding a slight bit of sharpness here or a flash colour there. They create images much like a painter would. Now they're also beginning to use 3D in the same way," he said. "We mustn't confuse 3D films with theme-park 3D. It's very different."
Bristowe said that different directors approach 3D from different angles. His team from Prime Focus worked on the 3D climax for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. He said director David Yates had a very clear idea of what he wanted to achieve. "David wanted stuff to be in positive space [for a deep, window-like effect]. He didn't want it to be on the screen plane."
This is a very different technique from that used by James Cameron, Bristowe said. "On Avatar, Cameron liked to put things of interest on the screen plane. Some people find that a more comfortable viewing experience."
In defence of retro 3D
One aspect of 3D which has been universally blasted is the practice of post-converting 2D material into 3D, both theatrically and in 3D TVs. Bristowe, however, insisted that things have moved on dramatically since the furore surrounding Clash of the Titans.
"It's a topic everyone has an opinion on," he admitted. "We've seen good and not-so-good conversions. But what's important is that we make a good film first. 3D -- whether it's native or done in post-production -- is just a visual effects process. It doesn't really matter how it's achieved."

Bristowe was quick to add that conversion isn't a cheap option. "3D conversion technology takes millions of dollars -- there's nothing automated about it. Automatic 2D-to-3D systems can never work because they can't work out where things sit in space. You need people to do that work."
Bristowe said he's keeping his fingers and toes crossed that his latest post-conversion project meets with a good critical reception. "We've just finished the 3D version of Star Wars Episode One: The Phantom Menace. George [Lucas] has signed off on it now. If it doesn't go down well, we'll take a real kicking," he said.
When polled, around 50 per cent of the audience at the Big Screen debate declared a negative attitude to 3D. Whether you're pro or con, let us know in the comments section below, or on our Facebook wall.

Comments 21
Add your comment
ace9988 16 August, 2011 23:10
1) not all scenes are shot in 3d
2) not all movies are shot in 3d, but converted (most rather poorly, I'm looking at -YOU- Clash of the Titans)
3) 3d glasses are a chore to wear for the cinema(someone should pay me to wear em), and at home it's no better with the active 3D glasses...which seemed to have been designed by technicians...FOR technicians rather than normal human beings i.e. shockingly uncomfortable
4) 3d infrastructure for personal use is almost non-existent (considering the extortionate prices we pay for it)
5) 3d isn't for everyone (epilepsy, headaches, nausea, big list of medical reasons)
6) ....any more reasons you want?
DrFish 17 August, 2011 08:31
Because of show timings I watched HP 7 PT 2 in 3D and felt it was very poor, I've seen it in 2D since, a far better experience. 3D glasses are uncomfortable (especially over conventional glasses), the loss of brightness is an issue, the extortionate mark-up on 3D showings is indefensible. At present, 3D (cinema and TV) is just an expensive and gimmicky immature technology that the industry is trying to oversell to consumers who should know better!
Nick Hide 17 August, 2011 12:10
The movie industry, like the music industry, has been treating its customers like suckers for decades. Instead of building itself around the creation of brilliant new films people want to pay to go and see, it's based its growth on finding new formats and making people buy the same old favourites again and again. The ability to own a perfect digital copy has destroyed this model and people aren't standing for it any more.
The solution is simple enough, although very difficult to put into practice: make more films people want to see, not the same old rubbish with a gimmick tacked on.
anonymous 17 August, 2011 13:22
I'm visually impaired in one eye, so I've never seen stereoscopic 3D. Nice to hear I'm not missing much :)
anonymous 18 August, 2011 13:06
WHAT WE NEED IS AN ENHANCED VIEWING EXPERIENCE BUT NO 3D GIMICS JUST TO SHOW HOW CLEVER THE STUFF CAN BE....AND NO GLASSES AND SEE THE SAME WHEN WE BUY A DVD AND NO EXTRA 3D SEAT PRICING. SIMPLE, ISN'T IT?
e1david 18 August, 2011 15:43
and if, like me, you don't have stereoscopic vision this will be a fad you can't wait to pass by... Next!
anonymous 19 August, 2011 11:30
It appears most people on here aren't big fans of 3D technology - which is absolutely fine if it is not for you. There are many people out there (including myself) who love 3D technology and the potential it has - yup, I have an active shutter 3D TV and I just use it to watch films and sometimes documentaries (it does a decent conversion too - better than the card board-sy effect of Clash of the Titans). I don't watch everything in 3D but some things are just more enjoyable in 3D for me (I agree, 3D glasses aren't great but I don't mind making a small effort to get the additional dimension).
In short, I do hope 3D improves / matures giving the part of the population that enjoys 3D a more fun experience. At the same time I hope there is 2D material available (including 2D versions of the 3D material) for the part of the public which enjoys 2D more.
PS: Just less than 50% of the population went to see 3D versions of Pirates of the Carib and Kung Fu Panda 2 this year - that's got to show there is demand (which may increase or decrease depending on how things turn out) so for those of you who do not enjoy it - please respect the remaining population and ensuring those are your views rather than implying factual evidence (i.e. you feel it is a gimmick rather than it being a gimmick).
PPS: If you close one of your eyes, the depth perception becomes in-accurate. Try it. Guess nature / brain is gimmicky as well then by that definition!
billfred 19 August, 2011 15:41
"Just less than 50% of the population went to see 3D versions of Pirates of the Carib and Kung Fu Panda 2 this year" - Source? I'm guessing many of the weirdos who think 3D is great went more than once. Just to point out have you noticed how bad the PotC films have been since the first one?!?
The fact is that ticket sales of 3D are declining; FACT. Maybe people finally have cottoned on that the movie industry has been attempting to do this since the 1920's. And that the glasses are annoying, they dull the brightness of the picture and that nothing really seems that well focused.
Sorry to have a semi dig, I don't really mean to. I'm just fed up to the back teeth of 3D. I too cannot wait for it to improve!
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:48
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:49
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:49
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:50
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:50
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:50
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:51
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:52
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:53
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:53
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:54
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 22 August, 2011 23:54
The whole thing is faulty. Two issues:
-Sharpness of every detail in the plane. Not unfocused second plane, not blur, not darkness, not photography mastery at all. Only syrupy, bleached, simplified, over-focused images. No deep field, no interest at all in how our own brain can build the experience with help from movie-makers. We need their over-detailed computer generated images to "imagine". Thanks for nothing.
-It is not 3D. It's a little play in a little theater with detached planes front-to-background and very flat, absolute flat side-by-side without any volume from a head, for example. Lighting is impossible. All the set, cameras and actors have to be placed in a very xenon-like light environment and then, later, using software they try to gain color texture or color deep or any sense of reality from computer generated effects. Even in the most common scenes from the street.
I can go on and on. Even if you can enjoy a 2D version of the movie you will suffer ridiculous things like stupid camera positioning heading the sky or the ground so you will enjoy water drops of rain with any clue to the plot, at all. Harry Potter 7.2 has several moments of stupidity only to enhance a 3D effect. The most ridicule was the dead of the bad guy. They, the movie-makers, offer you a redone scene with burned-paper, ashes, across the screen, flying to you. They offer only few minutes earlier the same scene, with the camera pointing the sky while a big amount of ashes were fallen from a destroyed magic field.
anonymous 30 December, 2011 23:53
The sooner 3D rides off into a world of avatars and movie studios get back on traack producing decent films without having to wear tinted glasses to view them the better. Thers a 3D or no 3D article at recently written, it's worth a read at http://www.shadowlocked.com