Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Nevermind having to bare 3D at the cinema, I don't know it i can continue to endure Dr K talking about it so inexhaustibly!

Quick Mark, you've probably seen about 9000 movies in your day, we've had Possession, Brainstorm and Silent Running, please enlighten us all about a few more overlooked weird classics that have been have been sitting dormant in the VHS racks of the world.

If you can get another seven as good at those 3, i'll eat my shoe. . . well. i'll eat my popcorn.

I too am worried about the final 'Harry Potter' film being in 3D - I'm arguing about this on IMDB right now. Every fibre of Harry Potter's being belongs in the IMAX and thought of having to find some back door cinema to finish off this series genuinely and deeply angers me.

Can we perhaps Ixnay on the 3D-ay for now folks? It's all getting a bit tiresome and repetitive (much like 3d itself!).

Oh btw, saw "Winter's Bone" last night, after first being thwarted in my attempt to see Scott Pilgrim (posts passim) due to it being sold out; so much for it being a flop! Probably a good thing as WB was well worth the price of admission. It's certainly the closest I've seen American indie cinema has come to the ouvre of Ken Loach - a vivid portrait of a side of America rarely seen on screen. The lead (Jennifer Lawrence) deserves some film award nods, if there's any justice.

What kind of shoe are you thinking of, I would suggest a moccasin.

Whoever said that PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON would make an interesting 3D movie is obviously someone who knows nothing about Paul Thomas Anderson, a brilliant writer who has been against digital projection for a very long time, which he equated with being the world's best television set, so you can imagine what his views on 3D are. He is in love with films and has no time to distract his audiences with 3D. I can only hope that he will speak out against this non-phenomenon in the near future.
The idea that Herzog is doing a 3D movie really does warrant the eating of a leathery shoe, but since he is still a man who has fascinating ideas about films then I'll give him this one.

I recently saw Herzog's "Cave" movie at the Toronto Film Festival. The 3D shots in the cave were an example of all that is good about 3D. The contours of the cave walls highlighted the artistry of the painters, and were greatly enhanced by the 3D. Outside the cave, however, the film showed all the of limitations of 3D. The movement of people in the 3D environment seemed jerky and was highly irritating.

3D has a place in certain kinds of documentaries, but is otherwise pointless at best, or annoying at worst.

I was gutted when I first heard about the 'revolution' in cinema, because, having only the sight in one eye, 3D is permanently off-limits. Heartened was I then to hear your views, Dr K. And if James Cameron wants a benchmark for his groundbreaking sci-fi masterpiece, maybe he should check out the dull, flat 2D failure that was Incep... Oh, wait...

I am dead against 3D, and I find it to be a patronising form of cinema akin to the Father Ted 'Hell' episode;

"This, is very very small. But those? Are far away..."

My brain just orgasmed a little at the idea of Lynch shooting 3D. Dammit Kermode, why did you even have to bring that idea up???

While I agree completely with Dr. K's stance on 3D cinema I still have hopes for At the Mountains of Madness. H.P. Lovecraft's novella translated to cinema by Guillermo del Toro could be an interesting thing to watch on 3D.

Dr. Kermode, I think by offering to eat your own shoe if David Lynch goes 3D you are actively lobbying for a campaign to get him to do so, which I for one support. Lynch for 3-D! Would the added spectacle of your footwear chewing add value to what would be an overpriced ticket in any case? Which leads to my second point: The only decent films I have seen in 3D are Monsters vs Aliens, Avatar, and Pirhana 3D. There were fine and actually worked, (where Toy Story 3 did not) as I believe these films were shot in 3D. But I abhor films being shot in 2D then 'retro-fitted' later, as to me this is plain fraud. Does trading standards not have a say in this? Or do the producers of counterfiet goods think they are beyond reproach as they are 'artists?' May I at least suggest a re-labelling: Just like a synthetically produced 'strawberry-style drink' does not contain real strawberries, 2D shot films should say 'A 3-D style film.' Then at least consumers know what they are in for (Dissappointment and a queasy feeling of wasted money).

I wouldn't mind seeing Kate Windswept's jubblies in 3D, retrofitted or not...

I wonder whats gonna happen now that kodak have apparently invented bright 3D which is supposed to solve the principal problem affecting 3D movies: the dimming of the picture once 3D glasses are put on with their Laser Projection Technology that produces a “bright 3D image display". maybe a new dawn or a dark forbidding future?

I work in a cinema and notice the lack of enthusiasm for 3D movies. Hopefully this is just a phase of cinema and a quick phase it will hopefully be. Lets bring back the enjoyment of a film for its narrative pleasure and viewing pleasure based on pure camerawork and setting and not have to concentrate on a 3D experience that actually alienates people. Of course Avatar brought back audiences to 3D but now every film is trying on the novelty and I feel avatar was more than just a 3D movie. The sooner that 3D is gone from our screens the more we can start to enjoy cinema for the viewing pleasure it used to be.

3D is indeed a gimmick - but that's OK.
"Avatar", "Dragon" and "Christmas Carol" were brilliant examples - I saw "Dragon" again recently and, fun that it is, it is BETTER IN 3D (yes... BETTER IN 3D).
Now these aren't 'serious' movies, but they are 'fun' ones.
On the other hand, "Up", "Ice Age3" and "Toy Story 3" were completely pointless in 3D - of no use whatsoever. As I suspect most films would be.
So, in summary, I *would* like to see 3D around in 2 years time - but only for the occasional fun/gimmick movie. I see no harm in that.
I also predict that 3D TV will be a disaster - and without that backing up cinema revenues I think Mark will ultimately be proved correct.

I fear Mark you are going to lose this one.
Why?
Not because 3D is better. Even if technology gets better for shooting and screening and one gets rid of the glasses. Just because one won't get to choose anymore. That is my big fear.
I personally think cinema doesn't have to be and shouldn't be in 3D. It is a 2D experience just like painting for example and there is no need to change that. That 3D experience and technology is much better for video/computer gaming. Using it there makes much more sense.
So why my fear?
It's the same problem about how blockbusters "have" to be. We have the proof in Inception that mainstream blockbusters can still be witty and have explosions and shooting and car chases all in one, but still which kind of movies will be made en masse and bring in the cash? The bayformers-like ones. And already now we have a lot of movies that are virtually only screened in (retro fitted) 3D and they will be huge box office successes if it is only for their fan base to go and watch them, the in your clip mentioned Resident Evil or Harry Potter for example.
There is an analogy in the computer gaming history. Once the games came in real boxes with the floppies or CDs inside with a booklike manual and some extras or gimmicks. Today you only get them in a cheap DVD case with only the DVD or CD inside. And it didn't happen because the consumers wanted it and bought them primarily, no, because the industry decided it, for obvious financial reasons in this case, and only offered the games in this kind of boxing.
And as it happened with blockbuster movies that all are more or less of the same dumb making and i fear that will happen to 2D cinema. It will become extinct because the industries decides so because they can charge higher prices for the 3D and make, just a wild guess here, 5% per ticket more revenue.
Only if the 3D movies make significant less money than their 2D screenings this future can be avoided but since so many movies are already virtually only visible in 3D I fear this is highly unlikely, since the people will go and watch it in 3D before they won't watch it at all on the big screen.

How can the people who complain about having to wear glasses for a couple of hours while watching 3D movies be so insensitive? Think of our poor astigmatic, long or short sighted friends who have to view the world permanently through glasses. Grumbling about the slight, temporary inconvenience it causes you when wearing them to see a film, seems to me at least, uncaring towards the feelings of our bespectacled friends, some of whom lead fulfilled and complete lives......

yes it is a hassle for us spectacle wearing people but then try wearing one set over the other and then you will really start having issues. I will be very upset if there is not a chance of watching HP 7 in 2D as I want to watch it for the story not for the shiny shiny effects.
That being said I am looking forward to Tron in 3D as it will have been made from the ground up which is what 3D movies should be and not this whole retrofitting nonsense which due to the whole lighting issues around 3D movies makes what would have been a possibly beautifully lit movie something that will be a major eye strainer

The argument for 3D seems to stem from the immersive argument in that it gives the audience a more complete experience. Alas those who champion 3D have probably never seen a film like Twelve Angry Men which can't help but immerse you fully. Simple story. Brilliantly acted. Excellently directed and shot.

For me, to immerse the audience you need a good story and a good script. 3D is just a way of hiding the lack of it.

I have seen several classic 3D films though. Jaws 3D was hilarious but I've yet to feel the need to see another one since I saw House of Wax 3D at the BFI a year or so ago. The place was packed and it got a round of applause at the end. I haven't felt the urge to see anything else in 3D since.

One major factor you've neglected here is the amount of money the film industry has plowed into 3D technology. Given that a lot of cinemas screen certain releases exclusively in 3D, and that ticket prices are higher for 3D, why would the cinemas choose to stop now? They have a captive audience. Now that 3D TV is on the way, it seems more or less inevitable that it will become the industry standard, regardless of whether anyone wants it or not.

The problem is, while nobody seems particularly impressed with it, there aren't enough people out there who actively hate 3D (I appreciate that you're doing your best on that score). Most people just go along with it out of indifference.

If blue-ray can succeed, so too will 3D. I'll just stay at home and watch old black and white movies on VHS.

I don't find wearing 3d glasses over my normal glasses a problem. What I do find a problem is that my left eye is weaker than my right so my right eye tends to compensate, which isn't noticeable in real life but when watching a 3d film where both views need to be seen well it looks odd and causes headaches.
Also, the only good 3d film I can remember was Santa Vs The Snowman 3d at the IMAX...

I think the essential problem with 3D is that it divides people along the lowbrow-highbrow taste continuum and I think many posters here are sufficiently confused on that dimension already and can't decide where 3D movies fit.

I LOVED Avatar. I experienced it as exactly like being at the circus. I was there for the spectacle and it delivered. I remember seeing the Moscow Circus and seeing a monkey riding a hippopatamus. Did I worry about plot and character development - NO. Did I say to myself "Holy s-word, it's a monkey riding a hippopatamus, right there in front of me" - YES.

Yes, there's an alarming trend for mainstream movies to be completely vacuous but Michael Bay would still exist regardless of 3D technology.

At its best 3D is an awesome spectacle that delivers an emotional punch. And in that way it's pretty similar to art forms such as opera, ballet and circus (all of which are readily available in 3D).

I think it's worthwhile to make the comparison between 3D and art forms such as opera, ballet and circus because all of these art forms would routinely fail the test of what makes a good film. The story line, plotting and character development of most of these performance arts sound like the worst movie you've ever heard of (actually they sound just like The Room, hmmmmm). What matters is the spectacle and the emotional impact. And that's what the best of 3D offers whether people choose to sneer at that or not.

I don't hate 3D I just don't think it's all that good. I think the best use of 3D is in horror movies where you have bouncing body parts and guts flying towards the screen to enhance the ickyness of it all.

If they really want to bring me into a movie in a way that differs from the good old fashioned having an engaging plot/story/characters route, then utilize the power of the movie ticket from The Last Action Hero.


Mark, you better bring some seasoning for that shoe if Davey Lynch has his way he already ditched film for video when making Inland Empire.

I'd love to agree with you on the 2 year life-span of 3D shindig but i simply cant, i do not think 3D will flourish any more than it is at this present time, i just don't think it will die out to the extent to which you are suggesting. I think you are sorely overestimating the audience of blockbuster films, or should i say underestimating general stupidity.

If David Lynch makes a film in, or allows it to be retrofitted into, 3D; i too will eat my shoe.
I will get a shoe, i will get a camera, and you have my word, i will record myself eating one of my shoes and make sure it finds you as an audience. I'd shake on it but for now lets just use our hands for praying.

Well David Lynch did embrace Digital Filmmaking with Inland Empire.

He's very much a part of the internet - see his pay site!


So while the man is one of the greatest FILMmakers ever - he's not averse to embracing the new in with an experimental eye and most importantly he's NOT afraid of it.

as an aside this might be of interest for those that thought inception was more like walking in GTA than in a dream -

I hope this means you will now stop talking about 3D mark. its getting abit boring. i dont think it really matters. you can always go and see 3D films in 2D versions anyway. so just go and see the 2d version if you have a problem with it. i personally dont like 3d much because i get a headache from the glasses so i dont bother to go see 3d films or i see them in 2d instead. sorted.

Hi Dr. K,

while I agree that 3D is a gimmick, it's no more of a gimmick than watching people dress up and pretend they are someone else. Or, adding music to a scene in a film to make you feel a certain way. Or, the use of colour in a film, often graded and altered to change the feel of a film. Everything that has happened in film making has, at one time or another been denounced as a gimmick. It just so happens that 3D is a gimmick that you do not like or enjoy.

Take the advent of sound, or the use of colour... both took a long time to be accepted and honed to perfection. Early colour films are extremely amateurish. But look at where we are now... colour in film is not something we even think about, as is 5.1 sound. However, both are as much of a trick and a gimmick as 3D. Also, the advent of sound, and the use of colour were at the time used as marketing gimmicks... used to bring in extra cash for the studios.

This isn't neccesarily a good thing, but with new fangled technology I think there's always an initial money grab.

I think the question with 3D is, does it add anything to the experience of watching a film? Could it ever be as important as immersive surround sound or vibrant colour?

I'd say, probably not to the same degree. However, I do think that once teething problems are sorted out (loss of brightness and colour, having to wear glasses, e.t.c.) that it will always be there as another little addition to enhance certain kinds of films. I don't think it will be gone in two years... but I do think that over time 3D will not be the be all and end all. It will cease to be used in marketing a film and simply become one of the hundreds of little film making tools that a director has in his box of tricks.

Step forward 20 years and you will probably be able to watch a film in 3D, without glasses and with full brightness and contrast... in a cinema that does not even advertise it as anything special. I do not think that every film will be made in 3D but it'll likely be used for a few movies as a little added extra.

What does annoy me a little in your reviews of 3D films of late, is that you seem to forget to review the characters or the story, or the use of sound or music. You only go on and on about the 3D, like a broken record. There seem to be more and more of your reviews that I come out of knowing nothing about the plot, story or whether it's well shot and acted and directed. We, your listeners, I think deserve a little more film criticism and a little less focus on that one topic. Can you not just start the show with a disclamer...

'Mark does not believe in or endorse 3D as a tool of film making. He believes it will be obsolete in two years. He would advise you, wherever possible, to boycott the 3D version and see the 2D version. Now on to the review of the actual film!'.

Your position on 3D is clear to all your fans, so could you please start reviewing the films again from the standpoint of story and character and direction and all that. I, as an adult, will then decide if that sounds like something I would enjoy... then make my own decision on whether to see it in 2D, 3D... or, in the case of it only being screened in 3D, to wait for the 2D version and watch that at home. I can choose what I would like to see and how I would like to see it. What I listen to your show for, is an informed opinion of a film, and for the entertaining wittertainment.

What your discussion of 3D is doing, is ruining your ability to review a film coherently or wittertainingly! I make a prediction, that if you keep on droning on about 3D, to the exclusion of everything else, then you will loose all your listeners in two years. Even some of my friends who hate 3D are getting fed up of hearing the same argument about it on the show every week. Just have a think about that and go back to being wittertertaining and insightful again.

If this shoe eating occurs, will we be able to watch it in 3D?

As a tool, 3D has potential, depends on who's able to use it effectively and develop an exciting aesthetic style with it. Still I'm pretty excited about the Tron 3D film.

I love 3D - and I'm not ashamed to say it!

Yes, done badly its a headache inducing waste of time and money but so are a lot of non-3D films which the critics recommend but I consider to be the work of idiots.

Beowulf in 3D was surreal, Avatar was epic and Final Destination left me in physical pain from laughing so much.

While I heartily agree that we are currently being deluged with cheap, pointless affairs which have no business being brushed with the 3D wand beyond the studios desire to squeeze as much money out of audiences as possible, I for one don't want to see the concept of 3D disappear altogether.

God forbid that directors, writers, producer and the like ever stop looking for different, unusual or creative ways to bring their films to life just because small minority don't like the results.

2D equivalent art form = painting
3D equivalent art form = sculpture

Two separate media. 3D movies should be purely for the experience - travelogues, rollercoasters, outer space, underwater, porn, etc. 2D movies are for narrative and character development and stories.

Just a thought.

I assume Mark has heard or read about this already. However, it perfectly captures my opinion. I think James Cameron has some nerve saying that the 3-D in "Piranha 3-D" is the kind that "cheapens the medium". 3-D in general cheapens the medium of film. Quite frankly, James Cameron's Avatar has done a lot of damage to cinema, as 3-D is now a ridiculous craze.

That being said, if I see a film in 3-D, I want to see it used by people who know what it is: A gimmick. I WANT my 3-D exploited. Personally, I loved Piranha 3-D. They threw everything at the screen - blood, guts, vomit, genitalia. While it may not be as beautifully directed as Avatar, it sure knew how to use 3-D a whole lot better. A carnival gimmick for a carnival movie.

I suspect that, unlike Resident Evil 4 or The Hole, Harry Potter Episode 7 Part 1 will be such a wide release that there'll be 2D screenings of it as well as 3D. When Piranha came out it was a goretastic 18 certificate in the middle of the summer holidays so they probably couldn't get enough screen space for a 2D release as well (and the distributors did submit both versions to the BBFC).

I still have no problem with 3D when it's done well. Retrofitted 3D is evil, 3D television is evil. The Hole is fine.

re: Curt_M - a film originally shot in 2D and reworked to show in 3D is a counterfeit product. Were you born daft or did you work hard to get that way?

Kermode you can not eat your shoe as being a pesco-vegetarian your shoe is made of animal material other than fish, unless you have vegan shoe wear it would be against your diet ethics. Although not fully vegetarian don't give in to your ethics against certain animals even though you may be happy for them to die to keep your feet warm.

PS we all know 3D sucks, get a new more interesting topic to discuss about!

3D right now is just a gimmick, and I hope Mark is right that in 2 years the current fad would have faded away. Avatar was held up as the pinnacle of what 3D can do, which to be honest wasn't much. A handful of scenes that had sense of depth, but it was a very weak effect, and for most of the film the 3D simply didn't work at all, it was just murky and headache inducing.

I think in the future 3D may well become more widespread, but the technology needs to improve significantly. Right now film studios can make money from 3D, so they are here to stay for now, in time people will grow tired of paying the high prices for shoddy effects and the profits will fall.

I can't believe how many people are saying Avatar is a good example of a 3D film. Avatar is a terrible film from start to finish, with or without 3D!!!

So some people enjoy wearing glasses to watch a film. 3D has been in and out of the public eye for how many years? I wonder why it didn't catch on. Could it be the glasses question I ask rhetorically. I will neither buy nor watch them. Oh, and Avatar, I have a lot of criticisms about Avatar which a friend lent to me. A classic case of over extending metaphors of different types, putting them in a mixer and then spewing them out on a screen. Proof once again that great people can make bizarre products, Cameron and Weaver included.

To further my point from the Death of 3D original post, which the good doctor callously ignored, please consider the following current release schedule of 3D movies:

2012
Project In Development Frankenweenie
March 9, 2012
Film in Production The Croods
March 30, 2012
Project In Development Madagascar 3
May 18, 2012
Film in Pre-production Men in Black 3
May 25, 2012
Project In Development Brave
June 15, 2012
Film in Pre-production Untitled Spider-man Reboot
July 3, 2012
Project In Development Untitled Batman Project
July 20, 2012
Film in Pre-production Hotel Transylvania
September 21, 2012
Film in Pre-production Monsters Inc. 2
November 2, 2012

Coupled with next summers big tentpoles (pirates 4, Harry potter, Captain America, Thor, and *shudder* The Smurfs) being 3Dified, I think we have a lazy industry's new standard. 3D = harder to pirate. Higher ticket prices too, so all in all, good box office news. Can't see that changing in two years, can you?

So so about 3D. My opinion is that Avatar is responsible for the 3D phenomenon to collapse. Why? because it showed the best of what 3D was about and people who went to see it mostly thought it was interesting, nothing more. The poor storyline highlighting it was a gimmick.

Loads of people saw it not many thought it was that great. End of Story. By the way, Avatar reminded me of Laputa castle in the sky and Nausicaa of the valley of the wind (not a Ken Russell movie by the way) both miles better.

They're already developing 3D TVs which do without the need for 3D specs altogether, so it's puzzling as to why the cinemas haven't waited for this technology to become standard; I see no reason why it can't be applied to the cinematic experience. But of course, without millions of idiots sitting there wearing silly 3D specs like good little steeple, paying extra for the "privilege", the cinemas wouldn't make any profit, would they? Where would the profit come from, if 3D was achievable without 3D specs? They'd probably charge for the curtains to be drawn, for the lights to be turned down, and the projector to be turned on.

I've said it before, and I say it for the last time: 3D is an extraordinary rip-off of staggering audacity. It is a crime. As Mark says, it's like colourising 'Casablanca', or 'It's a Wonderful Life'. And no doubt if they did that, some idiot would actually pay to see it. We really do deserve what we get.

So do they make prescription 3D glasses yet? Because until that day...

What about ppl with only one eye, or sight problems where 3D technology is useless ? Can they demand under anti disabilities discrimination rules that the film must also be show in 2D ? What about small independent Picture Houses.

The Hollywood bean counters must be laughing all the way to the bank.

3D is just another means of increasing the revenue to the big studios by rolling out new digital technology (projectors and distribution media) to reduce movie distribution/cinema staffing costs and stop piracy.

Figures banded around the internet say a 35mm print costs several thousand dollars whereas a hard drive carrying a digital print cost approx $50 and can be reused numerous times.

The 3D fad with be gone in a couple of years but not before cinema go'ers will have bankrolled a new digital movie distribution system.

At least we won't have to put up with the 2nd hand prints of some movies which have been kicking around the US multiplexes for months.

I saw toy story in 2d and I didnt even realise it was meant to be seen in 3d. And you mentioning about the picture being not as bright and vibrant is interesting because one of the things that struck me when watching toy story 3 in 2d was just how beautiful it all did look. Was this lost someway in 3d?

Back when 3D was all about the blue/red plastic filters & you couldn't watch a 3D film & have it remain even vaguely true to life colour-wise, I'd have agreed with you. I saw a "4D Experience" at my local Sea Life Centre (which I went into wondering how they were going to simulate the 4th dimension - would it be so long & boring I'd fall asleep?) where they use polarised sunglasses type lenses to get the 3D effect. The picture has perfect colour & the 3D effect is very realistic. The 4D bit is the gimmick - you're subjected to bubbles & a fine spray of cold water when the camera's in waves or under water, is all. All in all though, well worth bothering with.

Hi guys..

Just wondered what your thoughts on the new Robert Rodrigues film "Machete" are?

Saw a screening a few days ago and I absolutely loved it.. just for the sheer tongue in cheek nonsense of it all this will an absolute classic!

De Niro, Segal and even the legend that is Don Johnson back up the main cast very well.

If you get a chance I implore you to watch it, its mental!

I really hate to draw attention to such devastatingly bad news but I'm afraid your prediction could be in jeopardy after reading this thoroughly depressing news article.
Pay particular attention to the preposed year of release. Oh George, hang your head in shame!!!

/news/entertainment-arts-11434545

Apparently George Miller is going to shoot Mad Max 4 on custom modified 3d cameras as well. Wonder how that will turn out. At least he's shooting on the same location as No. 2.

i think that the reason that 3D films are gimmicky at the moment is because films are currently being viewed though a 2D frame. for the 3D effect to work something has to break through the forth wall and float around above us, such as a bullet. a bullet can do this as it can remain inside the frame and still be big enough for us to see as a 3D object. but if you try this with a person the moment the person moves out of the 1st or 2nd dimension of the frame, the 3rd dimension is lost.

This could be solved by instead of having a screen on one wall, the walls above and to the sides of the audience would also need to be projected onto. this would get rid of the frame which means that the 3D illusion isn't broken and the film is no longer gimmicky.

the problem is that no film of this kind has been made. all of our dramatic connotations of film are all contained within this little square. it would become a different art form.

so DR. K, you will be both wrong and right. wrong because these 'films' probably will be made and enjoyed by many. and right because our current conception of a 3D film would stop being used as it doesn't work and also because it will probably take longer than 2 years to have the technology.

I have argued with anyone that would listen 3D is a gimmick and wont last, film is too much a 2D realm for 3D to make its way in and be a permanent fixture. Films like the new Resident Evil make my point for me when shades fly towards the screen just to use the effect. 3D wont do what surround sound did for film and cinema.

It feels as though Movie companies and to much an extent hardware manufactures are using 3D in cinema to push 3D at home, this in turn is because the hardware sales of new TV's and BD/DVD players is slow and they need a golden egg to push through more. Once UHDTV becomes the next thing (Ö÷²¥´óÐã have just tested a camera made by NHK for a a Live broadcast of The Charlatans) we will see 3D wain and die if not before (I Hope)

So 3D is presumably being trumpeted as the future cinema at least in part because it's unpirateable - in order to get the full 3D experience, you have to go to the cinema. All well and good, but has anyone considered that it might just have the opposite effect of putting people off buying 3D movies on DVD? The last film I saw in 3D was Avatar, and yeah, it was fine. It looked good. But it's appeal, however limited that may be, was based so much in its 3Dness that the idea of buying it on DVD seems ludicrous. (Okay, I probably should have picked a better film to illustrate my point, but hey...)

On the subject of David Lynch filming in 3D though - what's the betting on him using stereoscopic visuals to display two completely different sets of film simultaneously, with viewers having to close one eye or the other in order to see either film properly? Now that sounds like an interesting use of the technology...

I know I am very much in a extremely small minority here, but 10 years ago I lost the vision in one eye. The craze for 3D has meant that I haven't been to the cinema in over year. Personally I can't for this fad to be over.

I think with 3D the sense of scale is missing completely. Objects in the foreground look smaller than 2D - lifesize. Do we want to go to the cinema to experience a simulation of real life? This isn't cinema to me. I expect 3D TV will have a worse effect...

There is also a loss of composition. Elements of the frame are not relatable when the are not on the same plane. Meaning becomes confused. Parts of the frame distract and become 'interesting', pulling us out of the story...

Finally, I think I get the same feeling with films like 'Watchmen', which I think is mainly pictorial, but not engaging in any other way. Flying camera shots and slow-motion & speeded-up FX are pretty to look at, but also tiring, overwhelming and overused. Worst of all, like 3D, they draw attention to the image and disrupting the point of the scene... I hope it doesn't last...

Mark, just in case you lose that bet on Lynch, there's always a sneaky semantic way around the forfeit; 'choux' pastry. You could just eat a chocolate eclair in Bristol.

!D