The Invasion of 3D

Every time you go to the movies you can expect that at least one film will be shown in 3D. With directors like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, and Tim Burton jumping on the bandwagon, it seems that 3D is here to stay.

There are many pros and cons of creating movies in the third dimension. Of course, seeing anything in 3D makes the movie going experience much more intense and involved. It’s great for action movies, but do we really need to 3D-ify a two-and-a-half hour drama? There are those who say that 3D is very similar to surround sound in that it helps immerse the audience in the film. When surround sound first came into theatres, many speculators said that it would only work for action movies that used multiple layers of sound to make the action more realistic. Today surround sound is commonplace for features of all genres. Will 3D fall into the same category as surround sound, just another element that brings the audience closer to the movie? I’m all about seeing amazing explosions in 3D, but do I really need to see something like American Beauty in eye-popping 3D? I guess the illusion of having rose petals falling to my face actually might be engaging, right?



You have to question the motive behind the desire to modify the industry standards. Is this whole 3D obsession just a ploy to make more money? After all, Clash of the Titans was converted to 3D after the film was shot—some say to compensate for the jumbled plot. 3D movie tickets cost around $20 per ticket. Not to mention that this higher ticket cost skews the box office results in regards to the number of people that are actually going to the movie.

Soon everything will be in 3D, including this blog. Wouldn’t that be exciting?