Dialogue

I use the word in its literal sense; an conversation of 2 voices...the 2 voices here obviously being the film as a drama and the film as a piece of technological experiment.

Having read sone reviews of the film, it becomes apparent that only a few critics have made the conscious decision to analyse these 2 aspects of the film independently of each other. Yes I agree that the 4k 3D 120fps features will have a notable influence on the viewing experience but I think it's a shame that the 'newness' of this immersive experience seems to be a distraction to some critics in their analysis of the film as a whole.

Angus Lee explained in an interview his view that 3D has been almost exclusively used for the more visually thrilling cinematic experiences but believes that the use of 3D 4k 220fps should be utilised in any and every genre and particularly drama, his point being that it can only enhance the viewers sense of involvement in the narrative.

It seems some critics are resistant to that concept and blurring their unwillingness to adapt and thus confusing their reactions to the technology with the drama it projects.

Change is something that most people resist and label as negative but once a necessary adjustment is made we hardly notice what we once viewed as so problematic and I feel this will be the case with these technological innovations: we will absorb the richer experience and not even notice the framework through which we view it.

There will always be a place for the use of 'real film' and that has its place but nostalgia should not be the cause of cinematic inertia.