I’m happy to watch in two dimensions (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

I’m happy to watch in two dimensions

8:31am Tuesday 10th January 2012 in Emma Clayton By Emma Clayton

Every now and then, I get the feeling I’m watching the Emperor’s new clothes.

Sitting in a darkened multiplex, wearing a pair of plastic glasses I knew I looked ridiculous in, the scales fell before my eyes and I realised I’d fallen victim to a three-dimensional rip-off.

I’d taken my nephews to see Arthur Christmas and on arrival we’d discovered the next screening was in 3D – which hiked up the ticket price.

A family ticket, including 3D glasses, was £35 and with a bag of popcorn, some sweets and the car park ticket, the whole outing came to about £50.

Gone are the days when a trip to the cinema was cheap as chips, with enough change left over for some actual chips. When I was a student I went to the local flea-pit every week, but if I did that now I’d need an overdraft extension to cover the cost.

It was the 3D thing that really stuck in the throat though. It lent nothing to what was a fairly bland film – there were none of those thrilling ‘reach-out-and-touch’ or ‘flinch-at-things-flying-out-of-the-screen’ moments you’d expect with 3D, despite a rather lengthy sleigh-flying scene.

Three-dimensional images are hardly innovative – Victorians were viewing them through stereoscopes when photography was in its infancy – but it seems we’re still expected to get excited about 3D.

It’s now standard practice for Hollywood blockbusters to be accompanied by a 3D version – usually little more than a few hastily-added scenes that jar with the rest of the action – and the trend is also seeping into television and video games.

Does it really enhance the viewing or gaming experience or is it, as I suspect, a money-making gimmick? In a recent survey of young gamers, the general consensus was that 3D was unimpressive and unnecessary.

And I can’t see the appeal of 3D TV. It may add something to sports coverage, if you feel the need to see every blade of grass on a football pitch, but I have no desire to watch Newsnight or the latest BBC Dickens adaptation in headache-inducing 3D. And, much as I love Corrie, I don’t want to feel as though Norris Cole is in the room with me every time he unscrews a jar of midget gems in the Kabin.

Since I can’t really tell the difference between high-definition and normal telly, I probably wouldn’t even notice if I was watching a 3D programme.

Unless something is specifically designed in 3D and is shown through the right medium, such as IMAX, it usually comes across as half-hearted and pointless.

Like so many things in life, it costs too much money and offers little in return.