Thoughts on 3D

Last week Ebert Robert wrote an article on 3d movies for Newsweek. The article can be read here: Newsweek.

I always enjoy Robert's writing and opinion, and this time I actually kind of agree with him. Here is something I wrote about 3d while back that:

James Cameron’s Avatar is a great film, and it has made buckets and buckets of money to back that up. As Avatar grossed over $2 billion film executives watched and began to scheme, “Hmm, if Avatar can make $2 billion and it was in 3-D, then maybe we can just make our movies in 3-D and they’ll sell like hot cakes!”

I hate be the bearer of bad news, but I’m fairly certain that a little bit of 3-D isn’t going to save the ailing film industry. Within the next two years there are at least 36 films that will be released in 3-D. Among these are “Shrek 4,” “Tim Burton’s Alice and Wonderland,” “Hood Winked 2: Hood Vs. Evil,” “Step Up 3-D” and a sequel to the 2001 talking animal classic “Cats & Dogs.”

My question for film companies is do these movies really need to be in 3-D? And are people really interested in shelling out a couple extra dollars for some lackluster 3D dance sequences in an unnecessary sequel to a mediocre Channing Tatum movie? I’m not, and I imagine others might share my sentiment.

Nine times out of 10 3-D is just a gimmick. James Cameron just got lucky. He built new technology to make his vision possible, and it worked. It made the world he imagined come to life and people loved it. 3-D won’t save the movie industry; the only thing that can do that is talented filmmakers, writers, and actors creating worlds and stories the viewers can relate to and become immersed in.

The film industry is facing a lot of problems; problems with ticket sales, pirating are overspending just to name a few. Being stuck in two dimensions isn’t a problem. Filmmakers need to figure out a lot of other things before they venture off into the world of 3-D.