There was a time – let's call it "2009" – when 3D looked like it could be the future of cinema. At that point, it was a technology long thought of as the last refuge of theme park gimmickry. James Cameron's Avatar, despite having a script written by Ralph Wiggum, changed all of that. It used 3D as a cinematographic tool – specifically built into the production and integral to its execution. It was impressive. What's followed since, isn't.
For Avatar made money – a lot of it. And what started as a risky revival of a 1950s 3D craze has now become the saturated embodiment of Hollywood laziness and cynicism – a "we'll stick any old shit in 3D" attitude that shows nothing but contempt towards its audience. And it's safe to assume, they agree: despite initial interest (mainly due to Avatar and Toy Story 3), 3D audience figures are falling, with ticket sales down 4% last year despite a record number of 47 films released in the format. Not only that, but with a YouGov poll last year showing interest waning, complaints mounting about headaches and, with the release of Men In Black 3 this week, a row between studios and cinemas over just who pays for 3D glasses, the cracks are beginning to grow larger.
You may have guessed, but I am not a fan of 3D cinema. I've tried. Honestly, I have. I've put in the time. I've spent the money. I even thought, at one point, there might be a future for us. But no. The main problem, beyond the expense, is that cinema is an immersive medium – one that stands or falls on the suspension of belief and its ability to rip you out of your surroundings. Some berk talking, another eating popcorn too loud, an Adam Sandler film – those are things that snap that suspension to remind you that, yes, you are sitting in a room gawping at a screen. 3D has the same effect: it's a distraction from what is actually on show; a vandalism of vibrant imagery.
The greatest uses of 3D – Martin Scorsese's Hugo being a prime example, and the recently released Hara-Kari: Death Of A Samurai being another – have been those with a sense of purpose behind it. Technology has been woven into the film process as an actual story-telling device, rather than just slapped on top for the sake of it. And there lies its biggest problem: a disrespect towards the audience's intelligence. Did The Avengers (or "Avengers Assemble", if you want to be an arse about it) really need to be converted to 3D? Does Baz Luhrmann's take on The Great Gatsby, out later this year, really need to be in 3D? People are not stupid. And they know when they're being ripped off.
With general cinema attendance falling and the film industry in flux, focus has shifted towards the "cinema experience" in order to get people away from their TV. It's happened before. In 1951, US film attendance fell to 46 million from 90 million in 1948. The very first 3D film, Bwana Devil, tried to fix that in 1952 to modest success. In 1953, widescreen colour images and stereo sound did considerably better. But what now? No matter how much James Cameron pushes it (with, as this blog interestingly points out, dubious reasons), 3D is dying a slow, painful death.
An obvious, reactionary answer would be: "Make better films." After all, it was the character-led stuff such as The King's Speech and Bridesmaids that did well last year – not 3D. Yet in terms of the cinema experience itself, quality over quantity seems to be the key. For instance, in a recent interview, Christopher Nolan revealed that he refused Warner Bros' request to film The Dark Knight Rises in 3D ("films are 3D. The whole point of photography is that it's three-dimensional… if you're looking for an audience experience, [3D] is hard to embrace"), opting to shoot nearly an hour of it on Imax cameras instead – the operatic, larger-than-life "gold standard" of cinema, as Nolan dubbed it.
Even on a smaller scale, cinemas such as the Prince Charles in London – with its sing-along showings and Labyrinth balls – are showing that you can do a lot more with the cinema experience than simply whacking some 3D glasses on it. That's not to say Hollywood should adapt that approach directly, of course, but it could certainly do with learning a thing or two about fun, thought and imagination. Or else, they'll just release, re-release and re-package until film eats itself. And no one wants that – especially if it's in 3D.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
