Is 3D the Future of Film Viewing, or Just a Gimmick?

*Originally published on 4/12/10



3-D technology has been around for some time. You'd see it used mostly in theme parks and occasionally a big release would get a 3-D showing. Every so often a television show would also have a special 3-D episode, Chuck, for example, had one last season.

With the massive success of Avatar, Hollywood has found a new concept to milk. I'm sure you've noticed now that every trailer has the announcer saying that the film is also available in 3-D.

I have nothing against 3-D, it can add a certain element of fun to the movie going experience. Take the recent, My Bloody Valentine remake, for example, it's a terrible movie; but seeing it in a crowded theater in 3-D was an enjoyable experience overall.

The problem with 3-D is that it can only be done two ways, overstated and understated. Overstated 3-D is what we're all used to; where the director and characters go out of their way to throw things at the screen so that you can duck or try to reach out and touch the illusion. Understated 3-D tries to go for a more subtle approach; the problem is that it becomes so subtle that you don't even notice it, in which case, what's the point?

It's either a flashy gimmick or a superfluous addition that does nothing. I honestly don't see how it can represent the future of movie viewing. They're pushing it hard too, some companies have even gone ahead and released 3-D televisions. HD is still relatively new, do they really think that people are going to go buy a brand new TV when they just got one a few years ago, in this economy no less?

Heck, in some cases, the 3-D can act as a detriment. We went to go see the new Clash of the Titans in 3-D a while back. Not only was it the barely noticeable kind of 3-D, but it often messed up the picture, making it blurry so that you couldn't see what was going on. That's not a step forward, it's a step back.

In fairness, this is due to the fact that the movie wasn't intended to be shown in 3-D, but the producers pushed it on there at the last minute, resulting in a shoddy product.

While 3-D glasses have evolved from the old paper ones with the red and blue lenses, the ones they hand out now are still fairly uncomfortable. I can't imagine people would be willing to put those on every time they wanted to see a movie, not to mention the ones with longer run times of 2 1/2 to 3 hours

Now, I haven't seen Avatar yet, so I can't comment on how it was used there. Apparently that, more than the other releases is what gave people the idea that 3-D was the next generation of film viewing. However, while it may have been a case of 3-D done really well, I get the impression that he used that to replace good writing. While 3-D is nice, I'd much rather have a solid script with fleshed out characters than have objects flirt with breaking the fourth wall.