With great technology comes great skepticism, and 3D is no different. While critics have been around for years, the criticism and praise have both become more vocal in light of the success of Avatar and the subsequent Hollywood scramble to release more and more films in 3D. I recently stumbled across this article that aptly summarizes most every critique of the 3D process I’ve heard. Each argument makes a valid point, and not surprisingly, I have some thoughts of my own to share, both in agreement and in conflict.

One of the most common complaints comes from wearing those glasses. Yes, they’re a a bit of a pain. In addition to having to wear something during the movie, there is also created waste. Until we have decent hologram projection technology, though, they will have to do. The article in question criticizes the plastic glasses over the paper ones, but the plastic glasses can at least be reused by the theater; and the paper ones are even more difficult to keep on during the duration of the film. Several complaints against the glasses are also directed towards the comfort of wearing them, particularly if you have vision trouble. I wear glasses and am nearsighted and have had no trouble with the 3D glasses whenever I’ve gone, but theater experiences vary for everyone.

No caption can convey the awesomeness of this photo. Image: http://www.barack-obama-now.com/blog/?p=1473

Such variation also exists with another common complaint – the physical drainage that comes from 3D. Many have complained of headaches, eye strain, sore muscles, etc. Again, a problem that can hopefully be fixed. However, I offer as a counter that such experiences not only vary from person to person, but are not restricted to 3D alone. I got physically ill watching movies such as The Bourne Supremacy and The Hurt Locker, neither of which were in 3D. The cause? They both employed shaky cam cinematography, a process that has caused nausea in several audiences, and one that my stomach and I would love to see fall by the wayside. But I know that it won’t, because when a filmmaker thinks it will work best for the film, he or she will choose to use it – and rightly so.

Likewise, if a filmmaker thinks 3D will work for his or her film, he or she will use it. The trouble is, several fear that 3D is going to be used way too much. The massive success of Avatar has spurned one 3D announcement after another, with several films being lined up to be shot in 3D or re-rendered with the technology. Some articles I have read fear that every single movie will soon be released in 3D. Says the Cinema Blend author: “Like Aunt Fanny clinging to her rabbit ears in the face of TV’s digital conversion, 2D viewers are about to be pushed right out of the movie market.”

I’m sorry, but I think this claim is flat-out ridiculous. It reminds me of when Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within came out, featuring highly realistic CGI that created almost human-like actors. Some were convinced that such CGI would come to replace human actors altogether. While Final Fantasy was a total flop at the box office (which laid a lot of these claims to rest), and 3D films like Avatar have been much more successful, I still see similarities between the two technologies in that people think the latest advancement is going to take over the world, when in reality, it will be employed where it will work best with the film at hand. Yes, Hollywood is going a little 3D crazy right now because unlike 3D surges past, the technology is actually being used well and appreciated by audiences. However, consider this: Hollywood releases roughly over 200 movies a year. So far I know of about 20 upcoming 3D projects, including ones that were just announced or in pre-development. So, given those figures, less than 10% of the movies being released or considered in the near future are going to be in 3D. That hardly seems like a global takeover.

CGI actors exist in appropriate films, but have yet to replace their human counterparts. Similarly, 3D is likely not going to fully replace 2D images. Image: http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/beat-street/reviews/finalfantasy.html

Furthermore, with a few exceptions, the 3D format is staying within genres where it works: sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and CGI children’s films. All of these genres rely heavily on the imagination, the unreal, and the concept of possible worlds, making 3D an excellent fit. I’ve seen no announcements for a film like Doubt or Up in the Air to be made in 3D, because as much green as studios are seeing from the process, in the end they know it won’t work for these kinds of films. Like several cinematic processes, it is one that is dependent on the genre and the story. Not all films can be shot in 3D, nor can they all feature shaky cam, or jump cuts, or CGI imagery. It all depends on the film.

Finally, in terms of green, a very valid complaint is the cost of going to see a film in 3D as opposed to a “regular” screening. Theaters typically add about $3 to the existing ticket price to see it in 3D. I agree this is a bit insane, as I doubt that the plastic glasses cost that much to make. Hopefully in the future a balance can be struck on 3D ticket pricing. However, if the movie studios weren’t charging us for 3D, they would find another way to get more money from us. As it is, I’ve watched the amount of money I have to spend on a movie ticket go from $6.00 to $10.50 over the course of my life. Hollywood is greedy, and overcharging for 3D is just one piece of evidence.

Not every film is being released in 3D, but there are several that I'd love to see released as such. Case in point - Christopher Nolan's Inception. It would be amazing! Image: http://www.slashfilm.com/tag/inception/

Many of the concerns with 3D are understandable, but I do not think they exist for 3D alone, nor do I think that these are dealbreakers for the process. 3D is yet another cinematic trick, one that needs to be used carefully and wisely, but one that I do think has a future, so long as care is taken.