Travis: 3-Don't.

Within the last 2 years, Hollywood found a huge cash cow within a "3rd" dimension. Beginning with "My Bloody Valentine" in 2008, producers found that they could make a terrible film, digitally convert into 3-D, charge a surplus for at the box office, and watch the money roll in. Then, in 2009, James Cameron's "Avatar" premiered grossing over $2,000,000,000, with the help of "newly developed 3-D technology". Everywhere were articles about these new cameras that were produced to "actually" film 3 different planes, to give the 3-D effect, rather than converting an existing film.

Here's where I come in: I bought into it. All of it. I saw ads for "My Bloody Valentine in 3-D", and I thought "dude the story will suck, but dude, its in 3-D!". I forked over the additional $4 and didn't bat an eye. I later went on to see "Avatar" for the same reason. I knew the "story" (aka, Pocahontas, Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, etc...) and read about this "amazing" 3-D tech all over the place. I went to see this multi-million dollar POS under the same thought process; "the story will suck, but the 3-d should be sweet!" But again, $13 down the drain. On each of these occasions, the 3-D did nothing to make the film better. The plots still sucked, and the characters still sucked, all the 3-D did was burn my retina.

Were told that this is "new" and "better", but 3-D is nothing new, nor is it better. The quality of picture is terrible, the front plane of the "3rd Dimension" is the only image in focus while the rest is just a blurry mess that makes your eyes sore. The technology has been around since the 1950's and is still crap.

But let's get down to brass tax. We all know why were told that 3-D is the "future" of film. It's because Hollywood says it is. The whole 3-D film market is nothing more than a cheap marketing ploy to try and get people to not watch films from their computers or from home. It exists simply make US go to the theater, pay an addition fee, all to watch a blurry film.

Another guise that were told by Hollywood is that "3-D films offer an increased state of immersion". But if I need to pay an extra $4 and wear glasses to enjoy your film, then its not worth watching. Whatever happened to making the story the crux of a film? Why is it the image that engage me and not the characters or the story? But its just another ploy by Hollywood d-bags.

Luckily moviegoers have wised up to this lie put out by Hollywood marketers. The chart below shows the steady dissension of 3-D box office sales.

I hope that all of us continues to not get sucked into watching terrible films like the latest Resident Evil, Saw 3-D, and whatever other crappy 3-D films come out in the future. Just always live by the rule: "would I watch this in 2-d?".