More and more movies are released in 3D. Some old movies are re-released in 3D. So are 3D movies better than 2D movies? In my opinion... No. Or as Phil Plait, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer, said on Twitter the other day: "Every movie is 3D: a series of 2D (width x height) pictures changing with time. #pedant"
The only movie I've seen both the 2D and 3D version of is Alice in Wonderland. I saw the 3D version in a movie theater and the 2D version at home on dvd. To me it was the same movie. Adding the illusion of another dimension didn't enhance the experience of the movie for me. It's still the same movie so why pay 2 euro more for the 3D effect?
The main reason why I'm writing this blog post is because currently at the theaters here in Sweden they are showing Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace in 3D. I saw the original version at the movie theater and I've seen it on dvd. Adding another dimension to the script could've made me go see it again but since the third dimension is just a visual thing I won't bother. I'm not saying that The Phantom Menace is a bad movie, but it's not exactly up to par with say The Empire Strikes Back.
Then there's the thing about those big ass goggles you have to wear while watching the 3D movies. Uncomfortable to say the least. If they could somehow manage to make the movies 3D without having to wear any special glasses, and if they lowered the price to the regular movie price, then I might consider going to see another 3D movie.
I think the 3D aspect really does add to the experience. Some movies are nice in 2D, but for me the 3D really adds the "wow" factor. Of course, a bad movie is still bad in 3D, but for a good movie it can really add that little extra something :).
ReplyDeleteThen again... maybe that's just because I don't normally see depth, and in 3D movies I do.