I’ve never written about my thoughts on 3D. The people who hate the format are usually rather vocal about it, but I guess when you are coming up against James Cameron it’s kind of a necessity. The haters think that 3D is a money-grabbing gimmick, a way for cinemas to pull in more customers and charge them a higher price, while studios use the inflated numbers to get higher in the top-grossing film charts. Adjusted for inflation, Avatar isn’t even in the top 10 highest grossing films, even though it has made almost $1 billion more than Titanic.
The argument against 3D films can be rather convincing, but I think that it largely misses the point. I see 3D as just another tool in the filmmakers belt, a creative decision that directors can make to build their creative vision. 3D is not for everyone, but it’s no different to any visual decision made for any film. But that is where my issue with the re-release of Beauty & the Beast lies – 3D is a creative decision to be made while making the film. I believe that once a film has been released, that should be it, it’s done, complete and everyone moves onto the next thing.
Beauty & the Beast 3D isn’t bad, it just didn’t need to be made.
The parallels between this and something like the original Star Wars trilogy is obvious. There is no need to get caught up in new technology to try and make something better – make something new, damnit! Like the Star Wars films, Beauty & The Beast is still that amazing film it was back in 1991, but the additions don’t do anything to enhance the experience, and in fact they weaken the original vision.
But lets get into the film, and the changes that have been made (I won’t even touch on the other big issue with the film – the altered prologue), and I can report that it isn’t all bad… just mostly. The 3D isn’t too evident for about 50% of the film, take off your glasses and you can tell. The most obvious 3D sections are outdoor shots where there is a lot of movement through buildings and trees, and the effect is quite convincing some of the time. Unfortunately though, most of the longer movement shots don’t look that nice – they too often look like layers of paper moving backwards and forwards. If you have seen an animatic, or the video production at the recent Pixar exhibitions, you will understand what I mean. It looks cheap and doesn’t do anything to pull you into the animation in the way that the recent Pixar films have used 3D, for example. You can feel that something has been added that maybe shouldn’t be there.
And that good thing I was talking about? The waltz scene! I have a feeling that this 3D conversion was green-lighted because of this scene alone. Famous for being one of the first uses of computer 3D animation in a feature film, this part of the film didn’t feel like anything was forced into a 3D machine. Truly, it is quite spectacular.
Would I recommend Beauty & The Beast in 3D? Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, the waltz scene is worth the price of admission (and yes, I know how dumb that sounds after my first paragraph up there) and the second is that it is probably going to be the only way for many people to be able to see this film in cinemas again – or for the first time. It was great seeing a cinema full of young kids experiencing such a classic film in this setting, even if it did have 3D cobbled on top of it.