To 3-D or not to 3-D? Not to 3-D. Mostly.

So, new 3-D technology has revolutionised the cinema experience, granting us more immersive environments and more amazing effects. Only, it hasn't, and it doesn't matter how many times directors or studios try to tell us it has. Mostly, it's a gimmicky and pointless effect, and now that the novelty has worn off it's becoming annoying. First off, it's not true 3-D - you can't look behind you and see more of the film; you still see seats and people eating popcorn. It just fools your eyes by projecting additional images that, when viewed through the glasses, make it look as though some images are separate from and in front of the flat background.

The first film me and Rach watched in 3-D was Pixar's Up, and we were actually very impressed - rather than pointlessly throwing things out of the screen in an attempt to make you go 'oooh', it added a depth and clarity to the picture that made the film look gloriously and intricately layered. We have since bought Up on Blu-Ray and although the 3-D was impressive, the film loses nothing in 2-D.

Then came Avatar. There is no doubt where the rumoured $400+ million budget went - James Cameron's film simply has to be seen to be believed. Effects like nothing ever seen, Cameron intended on 3-D from the film's early inception. He conceived, designed, developed and built the technology used to make it. As such, Avatar is the pinnacle of modern 3-D technology, even (just) managing to cover the cracks in the undercooked and cliched plot, to the point where it would probably scrape a 9/10 if I was ever to review it. Striking, subtle, incredible; if you didn't see it at the cinema in 3-D, you'll probably never really understand. As with Up, while the initial impact will always remain, provided you managed to catch it on the big screen, very little is lost re-watching it in 2-D.

Smelling cash, studios have begun to embrace 3-D in earnest, to the point where they'll give 2-D films post-production botch-jobs to make them 3-D-ish and then market them as genuine 3-D - Clash of the Titans, hang your shitty fake 3-D head in shame. As we had been so impressed with the 3-D in Up, we caught Toy Story 3 in 3-D, and either the 3-D wasn't as good or the effect had simply lost the initial impact. It added nothing. Not a thing. Toy Story 3 is such a wonderful film anyway, however, the extra cash we forked out for the 3-D that we may as well have pissed away didn't really annoy us all that much.

Recently the final Harry Potter movie was released. Filmed using 3-D cameras, this was to be genuine 3-D, not shameless post-production fakery. Even so, we didn't really want to see it in 3-D. In the end we had to because the cinema times were against us and we only had a limited window of time during which we could lose the kids. Not only did it not add anything to the film, now that I've also seen it in 2-D, it's clear that it actually removes a fair bit of it. The 3-D works in as much as the characters are separated from the background, but as most of the film is set in fairly lightless places, the background detail is often lost, merging into an indistinct blurry mess, in front of which only the character is in focus. In 2-D, the image is clearer, the backgrounds are sharper, and the experience is more satisfying for it.

I hope the current fad fades away soon, to be honest. 3-D TV? Shut up. They sell it on the idea of watching your favourite football team or film in 3-D at home, but really, beyond that who wants to watch Have I Got News For You in 3-D? Or Question Time? 3-D gaming might have potential, but I think the novelty will soon wear off there as well. And I hate mobile phones at the best of times, so making them 3-D will certainly fail to endear them to me any further. 3-D has officially outstayed its welcome. Unless James Cameron's doing it.