“Also Showing in 2D”

Has it really come to this? Has the backlash against 3D gotten so bad that now even the advertisements for real 3D movies need to reassure viewers that the films will be safe to watch in plain 2D as well? Apparently so, judging by the latest ads for ‘Shark Night 3D’.

It wasn’t that long ago that the phrase “Presented in 3D” was a big selling point in movie advertisements. Unfortunately, Hollywood flooded the market with a barrage of 3D movies over the last couple of years. Although some have been photographed with genuine 3D cameras, many others were poorly converted from 2D. This has caused viewer distrust for 3D presentations, and burnout on 3D in general.

The other night, I came across the following TV spot for ‘Shark Night 3D’, which proudly boasts at the end that the movie is (or will be), “Also Showing in 2D.”

According to this article on Deadline, ‘Shark Night 3D’ is a native 3D production shot with 3D cameras, not post-converted from 2D. Director David R. Ellis previously filmed ‘The Final Destination‘ in the same format. Perhaps more importantly, much like last year’s ‘Piranha 3D‘, ‘Shark Night’ is an exploitation flick whose sole purpose for existence hinges on the 3D gimmick. Is there any point to watching either of these movies in 2D?

Are you more likely to want to see ‘Shark Night 3D’ now that you know that it will be available in 2D?


  1. Jane Morgan

    Final Destination 5, in its opening weekend, was 75% 3D.

    They’re only doing these “2D” tags to avoid audience confusion.

    However, as the demographic for ‘Shark Night 3D’ is mostly hillbillies, I wonder if they’re just making the confusion worse.

  2. omf

    I don’t believe poor 2D-to-3D conversion quality has been the primary reason for audiences’ misgivings about watching movies in 3D.

    Unless a film gains clear, tangible benefits from being in 3D, then the negatives far outweigh the positives (i.e. higher cost, lower picture quality, mandatory eyewear, eye strain and headaches), regardless of how well executed the 3D process is.

    I can see how a movie like “Shark Night” would be a good candidate for 3D treatment, but even animated film like “Toy Story 3” doesn’t significantly benefit from the extra dimension but for a moment or two of exaggerated perspective.

    If all the negatives associated with 3D were eliminated, then there wouldn’t be a reason to prefer 2D over 3D for the majority of modern films. But then, the all-important financial benefit of higher ticket prices would vanish and studios would have no incentive to create most films in 3D to begin with.

  3. EM

    I am reminded of a video cover for the Z-grade schlockfest that is Robot Monster. The film was shot (nonfatally, alas) in 3D, but the video presentation was not in 3D. Indeed, the cover proudly proclaimed, “IN INTRIGUING 2-D”!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *