I read an article this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald from Richard Glover and while I hear what he is saying I cannot agree with his sentiment.

The article is based around 3D technology and how it is essentially a waste of time and money. Richard goes on to say how you can’t get better than a book and how the images and characters that one can create in their head are far superior than anything that can be done on the screen. He goes on to say:

A film in 3D may look "real" but what’s the big deal about producing an art form that appears closer to life?


Expensive technology does not always create better storytelling. Mostly it creates worse storytelling by strengthening the hand of the investors and the studios over those of the creators. Each time a dollar is added to the cost of filmmaking, it becomes more a product and less an art; with each dollar the investors become more risk averse and the product becomes more predictable, taking us even further from the time in which filmmaking could be done by an artist with a vision, rather than a studio with $100 million to invest

I agree that a good book is fantastic and have many happy memories of being engrossed in a book for weeks. But, I thought the immersive world that Avatar created was a technological feat that added to the movie enormously.

To take away from the skill and effort that the artists and technological whizz kids have put in to this movie experience is to belittle the role they have had in the experience that is Avatar.

Should we stop striving for new and innovative ways to do things? Should we stop climbing mountains just because they are there? Heck should the internet have been canned all those years ago? Should we stick to just paper for news and kill more trees? Should we be tied to Telstra for phone calls instead of cheap ones on Skype? No, we should be encouraging this kind of innovation because it is a good thing. This is not harming anyone. This is not research in to nuclear weapons. This is entertainment. This is just the kind of technology that one day could lead to technological advances in medicine that will save lives.

I know that 3D might not be for everyone but to shed it in such a negative light as this article does is unjust and one persons opinion. I wouldn’t mind if the article was a little more balanced but this provocative style of “I am right, you are wrong” journalism is a little narcissistic for my liking.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think falling head long in to 3D and trying to bring it in to the home so soon is not necessarily the most wise decision. I could be wrong but I suspect anyone who falls for the 3D TV ploy this early in the game could well be sorry. But hey, if people have money to waste who are we to decide what they should spend it on, although I would like to think that we the people might consider using some of their excess cash to help the homeless, starving people of the world.

I applaud James Cameron for pushing the limits of technology for this movie. Is it the best movie ever? Well no I don’t think so, but it was very entertaining and visually stunning.

Do I look forward to the next 3D release with anticipation? Again No, I am sure there will be some good ones at some point but we will have to wade through a lot of crap to get to them. Further more I have just been having a discussion with my wife regarding 3D technology in Australia and the USA and we both had a very positive experience watching Avatar in a Digital 3D cinema in the USA. However, I have to admit that seeing the movie here in Australia in 3D the glasses were not as good and the experience was not as good. To really get the full 3D experience you really need to be in a cinema that is designed for it and this could well be the cause of the “Chunder Down Under” as Richard mentions in his article.

Keep pushing the technological barriers people or we may never master time travel or teleportation :-)