Mark Kermode on why Avatar proves that 3D is a gimmick

This entry was posted in film and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Mark Kermode on why Avatar proves that 3D is a gimmick

  1. James says:

    He makes some good points and really nothing is better than story when it comes to films and Avatar hasn’t exactly got the greatest story in the world.

    That said, someone on the YouTube comments wrote:

    I disagree, the times when the 3D works best is not when something came out of the screen, but when it made the screen look deep. there where two scenes where the screen looked like a box with real stuff in it, the´╗┐ cockpit and briefings for example.

    I have to agree with that. Cameron used 3D to immerse the audience in this world, sometimes when you least expect it. That’s the genius of his work over any other 3D film I’ve ever seen.

  2. Aaron says:

    Yeah, his intention was to use 3D in a more immersive/subtle way than most other 3d movies which are all ‘zomg something is flying at my face’.

    Still, I found it more distracting than immersive, because it’s not the same as real life 3D, it’s blurry as fuck and you can only look at the ‘sweet spot’ on the screen.

    I find flat movies that use depth of field to be more immersive because it’s not distracting me with gimmicks and giving me a headache.

Leave a Reply