3D this, 3D that - why I am yet to be convinced

I was the BVExpo last week, which was held at Earl's Court, London. The place was packed full with the latest technology and equipment for the broadcast world.

I had no intention of going there to listen to any 3D talk; I wanted to go there all serious-like, telling myself I must go and check out any equipment for my DLSR.

Needless to say, my colleague and I ended up outside the 3D Theatre and walked into a talk about 3D in the home. It started with a intro to 3D by showing the Royal Gala at the Albert Hall - all in 3D. Not bad, though hardly amazing, apart from some wide shots that actually made you feel as if you are in the crowd, or in the arena at least, though this would have been helped by the huge theatrical screen.

Then the speakers yakked on about 3D of course and one woman was particularly adamant that 3D was set to overtake all formats of broadcast and all appeared to agree that it was consumers who were demanding this surge in 3D products.

Ok, so that might put in the minority here, but I am yet to be convinced by 3D. Here's why:

1. Our own eyes do the job when it comes to perspective and depth. Why do I need the 'illusion' of the pole hanging in the foreground for me to feel as if it is the foreground? Which leads me on to...

2. 3D does not generate a more 'real' visual experience - it's hyper realism in a way because your brain very well knows this is some optical illusion and has to adjust accordingly. 

3. The woman on the panel of speakers - I forget her name - she mentioned how it creates another experience than what you generally see on TV - it's not the same kind of ball game, even the shots picked are different. Fair enough but I wasn't convinced that 3D gave me another kind of experience - I was still staring up at a screen and this time wearing glasses over my glasses. It certainly didn't immerse me into the events on screen more.

4. It really is a big con that has made people think they MUST have this new experience rather than whether they should. How much value is it really adding to your experience when watching something? Which leads on to -

5.  I always thought the whole point or allure of 3D is the fact that stuff flies out at you, hence making the other dimension worth it. If you're not going to have that (what the lady called Disney theme park approach) and the mind just adjusts to the 3D output after 10 mins, then what is the point? It just melts away (as  it did for 'Avatar' which perhaps had 5% 3D worth material). Then the price of a ticket for a 3D movie is a colossal waste and con.

Where do I think 3D can really take off? - VIDEO GAMES. That's right - this industry has always looked at ways to immerse the user/player into the games more and we've always had this notion that virtual reality will come about sooner rather than later. So I believe investment for 3D should occur in video gaming - you are more inclined to wear some goggles and go with it, swinging a remote around to create the motion of a sword or bat. That makes *more* sense for me.

So I won't be heaving a collective sigh when video 'geeks' can wire in and 'walk' around the worlds of Warcraft etc. I will be heaving a great sigh when film producers and other people even contemplate shooting 'The Great Gatsby' in 3D, for then the art of film will be lost.

A Review of TRON: Legacy

Having read varying reviews online about this film, I didn't have high expectations going in but gallantly accepted my friend's suggestion that we stay neutral while viewing. The actual experience of it was rather enjoyable, in part to the other viewers who sniggered and didn't take the film too seriously either (not in bad way, mind, in a jovial acceptance summarised by the guy who blurted out 'Downhill from here' when the Disney ident appeared at the start).

Before going in to see this film, it was interesting that I had spoken to a few people about the con that is 3D film (our brains already create 3D perspective, most films are made 3D in post, an excuse to charge more, it detracts from story etc etc). SIDENOTE - when the trailers played, the Pirates of the Caribbean made my point for me - the ridiculous bit when the knife slams through the door looked silly in 'coming out' - it detracted from reality rather than adding to it. But I halted all cynicism once the movie played.

**SPOILERS***
Firstly, I'd say that I haven't watched the previous Tron and know little about the story around it, so I did come at it rather fresh, as they say. As an overall film experience it wasn't half bad, and let's face it, it was always going to rely heavily on visuals. I was rather carried along with the aesthetic once we got to 'The Grid' world; it reminded me of Jonny Quest which I watched when I was younger. The downside was the CGI young Jeff Bridges which wasn't convincing at all. Silly when they had flashbacks of Kevin Flynn when younger, we might as well have been in a video game (where 3D belongs - ok I shut up now).

The story wasn't terrible, there was potential for interesting layers, i.e. Zen Buddhism, the art of doing nothing, conflict without fighting, perfection vs imperfection etc. Some other critic wrote how the script was a rehash of East of Eden, which I don't agree with - it wasn't up to that standard at all, there were some terrible one liners but it could have been worse. Most characters were engaging enough and of course, the strongest performance came from Jeff Bridges.