Back when 3D technology was just being reintroduced into the media industry, Kermode immediately predicted it would be a flop, due to it being a "gimmick" and just another way of selling expensive TV's in his view. Mark Kermode believes that 3D doesn't add anything worthwhile to the narrative of a film, and instead can ruin the whole experience. Back when the film industry was taking to the idea of 3D, Kermode wrote this article for the Guardian which calls 3D a "con".
One of Kermode's main points in the article is that 3D is just a money making technique, and not to benefit the audience, but instead the conglomerates producing these blockbuster films. Whilst many films were being shot in 3D just 5 years ago, this year only two films have used actual 3D cameras for their production. The remaining dozens of 3D films still being released have opted for the cheap option of editing the film to have another dimension within post production.
This blog has some really good stances on the relevance of 3D films. You raise a lot of valid points and I think begin to look into your argument. The only thing I would say to improve is to add an extra film to look at as well as Avatar and Ghostbusters.
ReplyDelete