« New De Palma thriller | Filmstalker | Karl Urban is Judge Dredd »


The Hurt Locker better in 3D?

TheHurtLocker.jpgJames Cameron firmly believes that The Hurt Locker (Filmstalker review) could have been better in 3D, and to that I say rubbish.

Perhaps it could have been better from a film-making technology point of view, but from a real audience member point of view? No way, Cameron is missing the point here, drama, tension, and the reality these soldiers face, would 3D have helped that?

Well there's one area that it would have helped without a doubt, the explosions. You could have seen and felt these much more than you did.

James Cameron seems to think that the entire film could have been better in 3D, but then he does drop in a huge caveat, not just yet.

"I think [The Hurt Locker] would have been better in 3D. Absolutely. It wouldn't have been hugely better in 3D, but I'm talking a future where you don't have to put 'in 3D' on the movie poster anymore, the same way you don't put 'in color' on posters anymore."

Yeah, I understand his analogy that he gives to Entertainment Weekly through , and I see why it works because people were incredibly sceptical of colour to begin with and it was eventually taken on as standard and now we can't believe we did without it.

However colour was, and is, non-obtrusive to the audience, it didn't result in having to watch their high definition sets through an extra pair of glasses and effectively reducing the frame rates on the picture and arguably even quality, it wasn't used as a complete gimmick on screen with only a few films truly integrating it and firing things repeatedly at a camera, it wasn't used as an excuse over story and characters, and I was going to say that it wasn't used as an excuse for inflated ticket prices, but then I'm not sure it wasn't. In other words, everything that 3D is.

The only way that James Cameron's assessment could be described as being right is if in the future world the following happens:

  • 3D doesn't need any interference between the audience member and the screen
  • 3D does not result in any reduction in any aspect of the home cinema equipment already purchased
  • 3D doesn't cost extra just because of the 3D tag
  • 3D isn't used by film-makers as the overriding or a leading factor in the scripting or direction of a film
  • 3D becomes an additional layer to a film as framing, light, colour, lens choice, etc.

Will that ever come to pass though? Will film-makers just overuse 3D in its basest form until the audience is so tired of it and stop paying inflated prices for a compromised version of the same 2D film?

Until every film-maker uses 3D as Cameron did and gets to the point that they almost forget they are filming in 3D it'll never work. Why you might ask? Well it's obvious, we don't walk around the world going “wow, that's coming right at me” or waving your hands in front of your face as objects pass close by in front of your eyes, all the time ignoring the real life that was happening around you.

3D needs to be as seamless in film as it is in real life.

Until then The Hurt Locker will never be better in 3D, and even then I'm not convinced it would be, for nothing beats story and characters.



I don't get why he loves 3D so much. I mean don't get me wrong it is okay but not every can have a full effect with 3d anyway.

I think it could just be a gimmick


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34