"Wow, it's like the disappointment is happening right in front of my face!"

Charlie Brooker said that once about an internet gig that Keane put out in 3D. So you may have an idea what today's rant is going to be about.

3D films; I don't get the draw of them. I must be one of a small percentage of people who'll freely admit that they enjoyed James Cameron's Avatar, but then I'm a fan of Jimmy's work; (Terminator and Aliens, not Titanic). But I didn't see it in 3D, oh the incredulity on people's faces when I said that. "Yeah, it's only really good if you see it in 3D." I have to disagree. I thought it was a well-acted affair with an easy to follow soft science fiction plot, clearly characterised figures and some top-notch action scenes, oh, and a particularly sweet love story in there. Now people criticise it for its plot being unoriginal, in that 'outsider becomes an insider and changes his ways'...way. Yes, this plot has been used before, it was done spectacularly in 'Dances with Wolves' for example, which is surprising, considering Kevin Costner's not only in it, but he directed it as well. But I think this is a hollow criticism, films have been doing that for decades, I'll use the first (admittedly poor) example that comes to mind; the 2008 film 'Taken' starring Liam Neeson, uses a near-identical plot to the vastly-superior 2004 remake of 'Man on Fire' starring Denzel Washington. Both are very enjoyable films, but if you mention Taken to people you don't get vehement diatribes against it for reusing the ol' kidnapping storyline.

Now, before I carry on I'll have to point out that I have, in fact, never seen a 3D film and I have no desire to. I'm arguing from a weakened position in this rant, there you go.

Looking back, I can see that Avatar (as a film, not a marketing product) didn't play up to the 3D element, there's no bit that stands out as a 'LOOK! IT'S COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN!' bit, unlike say, 'Clash of the Titans' which managed to ruin a perfectly good 29 year old film and slap some 3D gimmick on it. There's a part where this magical 'Djinn' creature throws a coin for Charon's ferry, all well and good as a plot point in a telling of an ancient Greek myth, but the way they set up the scene was for the Djinn to toss the coin towards the camera. In 2D it looked like an odd choice of camera angle, but I immediately realised that, like so many others, this film was being marketed on the weight of its 3D content. To audiences watching it in 3D the coin would be flying right towards their face. Wow! What a spectacle!

Except it wouldn't be really, it would be distracting. I'll use another example before I go on about immersion like a wankerous disciple of Mark Kermode. The fourth (and hopefully, final) Resident Evil film; 'Resident Evil: Afterlife' stars, as ever, Milla Jovovich as Alice. The plot is pretty much the same as it's been since the second film; Alice wants revenge against the corporation who blah, phmeh, snuh. You get the picture; but it's not the plot that bothers me. The film is in 3D; in fact chances are it's in "eye-popping" 3D, which differs from other 3D techniques used in films because it, at some point during the film, makes the audience's corneas explode.

In the advert for the film, you see some shots that make that one gratuitous scene in Clash of the Titans look as subtle as a fart in a hurricane. I saw:
A split-headed dog leaping at the screen,
a Second World War-style aeroplane flying towards the screen,
some arbitrarily trenchcoat-wearing darkly-dressed people throwing a pair of sunglasses at the screen,
Alice kicking a tray of surgical equipment at the screen
and an enormous hammer/axe spinning towards the screen.
This was in a 34 second advert. I mean, how poor must the film be if they're pushing the 3D gimmick so heavily? It's not like you can even see the 3D effect on the advert, so it just looks like the director has this odd 'let's fuck up the fourth wall' fetish.

My other gripe with the 3D craze is how it affects how films are being made. Let's create a fictional scene in a film now:
There's a young mother, she's mentally disturbed and she's not been taking her medication, she sneaks out of bed, takes her child and escapes from the hospital, she steals a car from the car park and drives down the road at night, crying, her baby cries on the seat next to her. Back at the hospital the police realise she's gone and they spring into action, police cars peel out of the hospital car park with their sirens blaring. The girl parks the car and gets out, carrying her baby, who's still crying. The police eventually catch up to the girl who is by a river and attempt to talk to her, "It's alright, just put the baby down." The young girl is still crying as she tosses her baby into the river.
OK? An upsetting and unequivocally serious scene I hope. Except if the film was in 3D, eye-popping or no, then the only thing that the scene would be pushing would be, "CHECK OUT THAT FLYING BABY! IT'S LIKE THE INFANTICIDE IS COMING RIGHT OUT OF THE SCREEN!"

It's distracting, the last thing I want when I'm watching a good film is to be reminded of how it's a film. I want to get lost in it, to care about the characters and the plot and how the situation will be resolved. And to me that would seem much easier if random on-screen shit wasn't appearing as if it was going to twat me in the face.

But it's not just films that are in danger here. Television is soon to 'go 3D' as well. Except it won't, television as well as film has been three dimensional since its invention, all that's happening now is it's going 'a bit sticky-outy'. Now, I can understand why a film-maker or a television producer would want their production to be in 3D, it's a lucrative craze, and cinemagoers expect it nowadays, so to expect it at home is, at the very least, likely. But I saw an advert (adverts tend to get right under my skin) from Sky about their plans for sports broadcasts to be in 3D and the news as well! How the shitting hell do they expect seeing football in 3D will enhance the viewing experience? And the news, well, let's see, if Eamonn Holmes was on Sky News and was telling us about the number of people who died in a gas explosion in, oh I don't know, Peckham, I wonder how I'd feel if he was telling me in 3D and I have to think it would be the same if he had told me in 2D; fucking awful.