The one kind of movie nobody “actually likes”, according to Christopher Nolan

Posted On January 13, 2026January 13, 2026

Christopher Nolan has always brought a decisively artistic flair to the mainstream, taking something as popular as a superhero movie or a sci-fi thriller and turning it into something darker, unpredictable, and more challenging than you’d probably expect.

That’s the genius of Nolan’s success. He knows how to attract an audience, from casual blockbuster watchers to dedicated cinephiles, and while there are certainly criticisms to be made about his work, you can’t deny that he knows how to make a film that guarantees popularity.

He knows what works, and he certainly knows what doesn’t, such as specific cinematic gimmicks that he will never touch. Gimmicks were always going to become an intrinsic part of cinema because it’s one of the most profitable industries in the world, and as Hollywood grew and film moguls expanded their businesses, clever ways of attracting viewers had to be devised. 

In some cases, cinema gimmicks have been delightful and perhaps even a bit meta, blurring the lines between the movie and the audience by almost involving the viewer directly in the narrative, but others are just tiresome.

You’ve got to give filmmakers like William Castle credit for his wacky ideas to sell tickets to his films back in the 1950s, which involved vibrating attachments placed on theatre seats, money-back guarantees for patrons who were too scared to finish the movie, and even stationing ambulances outside theatres for those who might succumb to their fear. 

These gimmicks didn’t really catch on, though. Not like the biggest gimmick in cinema history, and one that Nolan particularly dislikes – 3D. The concept of 3D cinema actually dates back to the silent era, but it wasn’t until the 1950s that the gimmick really took off, with House of Wax marking a turning point in mainstream American cinema for the 3D film.

3D films have experienced their fair share of peaks and declines in popularity over the years, with a particularly strong resurgence emerging in the 2000s, when many DVDs came equipped with red and blue paper glasses, while cinemas offered many 3D (and even 4D) screenings alongside regular ones.

You do have to wonder what the point of 3D cinema actually is, because the experience of wearing these flimsy glasses for two hours, only to see action popping out of the screen at you, just doesn’t feel all that worth it.

Nolan believes it to be a profoundly overrated gimmick, revealing to Yahoo! Movies, “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 continued, “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.”

So, don’t ever expect to watch the bomb exploding in Oppenheimer in 3D, nor the events of Dunkirk, because Nolan is firmly against the idea of tarnishing a great film through such a pointless gimmick.

Related Topics