2D vs 3D

I was originally going to do a post comparing The Dark Knight Rises to The Avengers, I got part way through and realised what I was writing was not going in the direction that I wanted. I loved both immensely, for different reasons. I feel it is unfair to pair these two films up simply because they are both super hero flicks and came out in the same year.  Attempting to compare the two however did get me thinking about the different experience a viewer has watching 2D and 3D films and comparing the two.

One compariosn I will make between TDKR and The Avengers is how much money was made in the opening weekend. Worldwide The Avengers made $392,538,708 (all figures in USD), the third highest total ever on opening weekend and first on the US list. TDKR made $248,887,295 on opening weekend well down the list at 15. Now there are many factors why there is such a difference in revenue between the two movies. The shootings in Aurora can't have helped. TDKR is a solid 2 hours and 45 minutes whereas The Avengers is shorter at 2 hours and 22 minutes. This allows for more screenings of The Avengers over a weekend. I believe however that the biggest factor in the difference of revenue made is that one film is 2D and one is 3D. You can charge more for a 3D movie than you can for a 2D movie. I had a quick look online but couldn't find any information on number of tickets sold. It would be interesting to compare the two and then do an estimation of whether or not the figures would have been closer had they both been 3D. Pretty exciting times for the super hero genre with The Amazing Spider-Man also released for the American summer block buster season and pulling in a decent amount of cash as well.

The Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy is what can be called an accidental trilogy. This means that it is unlikely at the beginning that there were plans set in concrete to make three films. Although each of the 3 films has a different feel to it, Nolan made the right choice not filming in 3D. The strength of TDKR and Nolan's cinematic genius make the need for 3D redundant. A lot of movies released now rely on 3D to make money and draw crowds. If it is a well made film (story, characters, cinematography etc...) then 3D should be seen as a bonus not a necessity. Very few people have 3D TVs....yet. What happened when it is released to DVD/Blu Ray and is no longer 3D? An example of a recent film that was visually stunning but lacked much else and was held back from being a great movie - Snow White and the Hunstman. I would have liked to have seen some of the breathtaking scenery in 3D and in fact I have been so accustomed to most epic films now being released in 3D that I was disappointed when it wasn't.

It was a breath of fresh air to see a film like TDKR filmed in 2D which will hopefully allow audiences and directors to realise you can still make a high grossing and visually stunning blockbuster in this day and age without 3D. I wonder if this is what it was like when colour films first came out? Just because a film was in colour to begin with didn't necessarily make it a better movie than a black and white one. Like now it's the story and characters and all of that other stuff we enjoy in movies which make a difference.

It looks as if 3D is here to stay and I am pleased. I actually really enjoy films in 3D. (How awesome was Tintin?!) I still get excited when the word flash up on the big screen saying "PLEASE PUT ON YOUR 3D GLASSES" (although I am easily excited...I still froth over surround sound). Epics and especially animated features, yes use 3D. I have yet to see Katy Perry's big screen dabble but was it really necessary to have it done in 3D? Although in saying that I wouldn't mind seeing her twins in 3D. Let's not abuse 3D for the sake of making money is all I am saying. Falling on deaf ears I know.....