I went to see Toy Story 3 last night.
It was wonderful. A joyous, pixel-perfect celebration of story-telling and animation that does Disney's amazing history proud. It was a tour-de-force of perfectionism: every animation, line of script, colour and set has been designed with the kind of love and care you only get when you have a team of dedicated, incredibly talented individuals working with conviction on a project that they intuitively know is going to produce something really special. The plot is more grown-up than the previous films', and, if you haven't seen it yet I urge you to get to your local multiplex and see it immediately.
The original Toy Story marked something of a epiphany for grown-up film-goers: a movie intended for children didn't necessarily have to a primary-coloured mess of simplistic plotlines and one-dimensional characters. So it's fitting that the final chapter in the story marks another cinematic turning point, at least for me.
Toy Story 3 is categorically the last film I will ever pay extra money for to watch in 3D. My local Odeon was showing a 3D print of Toy Story at half six and the 2D version two hours later: I've concluded I'd have gladly waited.
Here's why:
It's expensive
Yeah, a quid for 3D glasses is expensive. Not for two people on a date, perhaps, but if you had (say) a family of five a trip to the cinema will cost you around fifty quid: more if you want to buy food and more if your children are over 12, since at my local cinema that means they count as adults. Another fiver for 3D glasses would be ok, except...
It doesn't add anything to the experience of watching a film
Let's be clear: I love cinema, and I love film. I used to write reviews of film for a local paper in Florida and I loved that as well, even though it meant suffering through pre-release showings of films like Tears of the Sun at nine-thirty in the morning with four grizzled hacks with halitosis and notepads. I love film, and I love going to the cinema.
A few years ago I went to see Batman: Dark Knight at an IMAX cinema in Sydney, and it was perhaps the most amazing cinematic experience I've ever had. It was expensive, yes, but there were audible gasps of appreciation in the opening scene where the camera swoops down over a fantastically huge and detailed Gotham City. I'll pay more for an amazing experience in the cinema and I suspect I'm not alone.
3D is not amazing. The problem is that if people notice 3D, they complain. They get headaches, feel nauseous, and stuff popping out of the screen distracts them from the altogether more crucial question of what's actually happening. The other side of the tightrope is the fact that if you make the 3D so it's not obtrusive and only appears at certain situations, you've just spent a spectacular amount of money creating an effect that most people won't notice enough to care about. There is no wow-factor. But a well-done special effect can be worth it, except for...
Wearing glasses is distracting
It just is. Every time I wear the glasses I can't stop fiddling. Every few minutes I wonder, "is it doing 3D now?" and peek out from underneath the glasses, either to see a blurry screen (3D!) or a focussed image (not 3D!). I fidget with them constantly. The other problem with a pair of glasses that cost less than a bag of cinema Haribo is that they're uncomfortable and I don't like things which chafe my ears. The other problem, of course, is that...
I can't see my popcorn
3D glasses, being polarised, are darker than not wearing glasses. The problem is that they're so much darker than normal they affect the image quality of the film.
Let's do a little, vaguely scientific test.
With my DSLR set on aperture-priority mode, I pointed it at a wall and pressed the shutter halfway to have it work as a kind of light meter. To get a good exposure, my camera told me, it would fire the shutter for 1/125th of a second.
Then, I held my New 3D Glasses over the lens and did the same thing. This time it metered and told me it would fire the shutter for 1/50th of a second to get the same good exposure. That's less than half as fast. Photographically, that means that my 3D glasses absorb 1 and one-third stops of light. In real world terms that means my glasses make anything I look at - a film screen, for instance - less than half as bright as it would be if I was just using my eyes.
When I flicked my 3D glasses away from my face during Toy Story 3 I got a bright, vibrant image that did justice to the artists' vision. With the glasses on, I lost track of details in dark scenes. Films shouldn't be hard to watch, you shouldn't need to squint, and you certainly shouldn't come away with an experience any less than the director and photography crew wanted just because the current vogue is for 3D effects.
I wouldn't say Toy Story 3 was ruined because it was in 3D. I still loved it, I recommend it whole-heartedly and if it doesn't win an Oscar I'll eat a pair of 3D glasses. But they'll be the last pair I'll ever own.
