Christopher Nolan’s Blunt Verdict on 3D Films

Christopher Nolan has a knack for transforming the familiar into something rather unexpected. Whether he’s reimagining the superhero genre or delving into the world of science fiction, his approach tends to be a touch darker and more complex than most would anticipate. It’s this ability to draw in both the casual crowd and the more discerning filmgoer that’s set him apart. Yet, for all his willingness to experiment with narrative and style, there’s one cinematic trend he’s never been tempted by—and he’s not shy about saying why.

Gimmickry has long been woven into the fabric of the film industry. As the business of cinema ballooned, so did the appetite for clever tricks to lure in punters. Some of these flourishes have been genuinely inventive, even blurring the line between audience and screen in ways that feel almost participatory. Others, though, have been little more than a distraction. William Castle, for instance, was notorious for his outlandish stunts in the 1950s—think vibrating seats, refunds for the faint-hearted, and ambulances parked outside the auditorium. Entertaining, perhaps, but hardly the stuff of lasting innovation.

3D: A Fad That Refuses to Fade

Most of these novelties faded into obscurity, but one has stubbornly clung on: 3D. The idea itself isn’t new—silent films were already dabbling with it—but it was the 1950s that saw 3D really take off, with ‘House of Wax’ leading the charge. Since then, the format has enjoyed periodic revivals, most notably in the 2000s, when cinemas and home releases alike were awash with those flimsy red-and-blue glasses. The promise? A more immersive experience, with action leaping out at you. The reality? Two hours of awkward eyewear and a spectacle that rarely lives up to the hype.

Nolan, for his part, has never been convinced. He’s described 3D as “a very straightforward one,” adding,

The question of 3D is a very straightforward one. I never meet anybody who actually likes the format, and it’s always a source of great concern to me when you’re charging a higher price for something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for.

He’s sceptical about the supposed demand, noting,

It’s up to the audience to tell us how they want to watch the movies. More people go see these films in 2D, and so it’s difficult data to interpret. And I certainly don’t want to shoot in a format just to charge people a higher ticket price.

Nolan’s Reluctance to Embrace the Trend

For Nolan, the numbers speak for themselves. Audiences, he argues, consistently opt for the standard version when given the choice. The notion of paying extra for a format that, in his view, adds little to the experience is one he finds hard to swallow. It’s not just a matter of personal taste; he sees it as a question of value for the viewer.

So, if you were hoping to see the detonation in ‘Oppenheimer’ or the chaos of ‘Dunkirk’ rendered in three dimensions, you’re out of luck. Nolan remains firmly opposed to what he sees as a pointless distraction, unwilling to compromise his films for the sake of a passing fad.