Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

3D cinema has been a fad before, it has come and gone several times with it never managing to stay for good. However things might be different this time. Avatar made $2.5 billion worldwide, there are already at least 30 films planned for 3D and the first 3D TV sets have now gone on sale. However critics argue that this time it will not last either, it is not a cinematic revolution but simply going to create a brief spike in popularity until the novelty wears off.

Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

Yes because... No because...

It will die out

The 3D experience will continue to develop for a short space of time before audiences demand more from cinematic experience. The film industry is just not ready for this. They do not have the technology to develop experience further than 3D.

The trend and the excitement of 3D will soon die out,(approx.) £1 a ticket it is an expensive ticket especially if you have forgotten your glasses and need to get food and drinks. With all this in mind people will limit the amount of films that they see in 3D and eventually it will die out. At the moment cinemas are taking full advantage of the circumstances and the novelty of 3D. It is a marketing strategy that will soon become less of a novelty and will cause interest to die out. In the mean time people will go and see 3D films and cinemas will profit greatly.

Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

Yes because... No because...

Too expensive

It is purely too expensive to produce a film in 3D and too expensive for audiences. IMAX cinemas had the right idea. They had a few films that had parts of the film enhanced by 3D or exceptional 3D feature films that were available for a short time in a limited amount of cinemas. Audiences are prepared to pay more and it is very much an experience. One that people will travel for and will be willing to pay more for as it is not something done regularly.

With 3D films it will just become norm, IMAX will still have the epic display of the film but it wont get the same recognition or audiences as the 3D film is readily available. People will get tired of paying so much to see a film in 3D that doesn't benefit that much from the effects. It will become 3D films for the sake of 3D films rather than to enhance experience.

The expensive nature of production will mean that it will be harder for independent film companies to produce good quality films that can be recognised in 2D. There will be no way that independent films could afford the camera equipment that would be needed or the ability for conversion of film. 3D would not necessarily enhance these particular films but there may become a point where it is just expected of films. It is just an expensive fad that makes some films stand out as at the moment not every film is expected in 3D and it is still in the opening stages of novelty.

Technology rapidly becomes cheaper as it becomes redundant. At one time, film equipment was too expensive for small companies to use, full stop. The period where it is too wide ranging to ignore but still too expensive for smaller film companies to reproduce will only be short term.

Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

Yes because... No because...

Seems to be on the way out

3D seems to be on the way out again. However, I believe it WILL BE BACK! I feel technology is rapidly evolving more and more everyday and eventually we will be at the point where 3D Movies and 3D TV will be so advanced that it will be like you're standing in the room with the characters you see on the TV screen. No fancy glasses, no head aches, just the norm but in 3D.

Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

Yes because... No because...

Attack against Piracy

3D films are a lot more than just £1 more, they can be almost double the price - this is one of the problems. Compared to a pirated movie downloadable off the Internet for free, they certainly aren't worth the money.

The technology to produce a 3D effect properly in DVDs will be created eventually now that there is an incentive.

The use of 3D cinema is an outcry against piracy. With the filming techniques and presentation of a film in 3D the ability to reproduce the film illegally is reduced. Although there are 2D versions of all 3D films produced they do not capture audiences in the same way. Why watch a 2D version of a film when for £1 more you can see it in 3D?

The attraction of 3D isn't just in the watching but also means that cinemas have become more popular. People will still download films and gain them illegally but 3D is not available in these forms, meaning that cinemas not only battle piracy but target audiences that would not usually go to the cinema.

Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

Yes because... No because...

New Technology

New technology, particularly the development of James Cameron's camera means that 3D is not the headachey, jolty, double vision production that we were once used to.

Technology has advanced and so has the quality of 3D. Even since films like Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens 3D has continued to develop. Technology has also meant that there a full-length feature films available in good quality 3D. Although not everything comes out at at you in a comical fashion there is a sense of involvement within the film and people become engrossed with the beauty and technology. This is evident with Avatar where audiences became depressed as they could not genuinely live in a paradise as displayed. Cameron's film attracted mass audiences all over the world and became the highest grossing film of all time, it is evident that the development of 3D can be appreciated through this film and that it will continue to develop further. Part of the beauty and the appreciation of Avatar is that the audience can see it outside of a cinematic world through the use of 3D.

Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?

Yes because... No because...

Audience Involvement

As it becomes the norm rather than a recent innovation, people will be used to seeing it and their senses will adjust to the diffence. The 2D will be phased out and people will forget what it was like to see 2D cinema. They won't consider it more engaging but simply see it as the norm, and the standard for the next development.

Through the use of 3D filming the audience can feel more involved in a film. It is more of an adventure than a viewing. Whereas in 2D film we sit watching a screen and aware of the entertainment purposes of the cinema, yet with 3D films there is more of a sense of involvement.

3D films reach out to the senses a lot more. Although we cannot smell or touch the what is happening within the film the audience feel that it is more likely. The distance and alienation of the audience is erased and instead the audience are up-close and engaged within the film. This can be seen as both positive and negative, but for film it is a development and through the high quality 3D filming that has developed the chances for this involvement and sense of realism is heightened meaning that audiences gain more from the experience.

Debates > Is the so-called 3D cinematic revolution merely a ploy to make us pay more at the box office?