While the technology has been around for awhile Avatar really got the momentum going with 3d. Most electronics companies are beginning to push 3d TVs and broadcasters are making plans to utilize the technology in their broadcasts (the World Cup, for example). Roger Ebert, however, is less than impressed and has outlined several reasons why:
1. It's the waste of a dimension.
2. It adds nothing to the experience.
3. It can be a distraction.
4. It can create nausea and headaches.
5. Have you noticed that 3-D seems a little dim?
6. It's an excuse to buy new digital projectors.
7. Theaters slap on a surcharge of $5 to $7.50 for 3-D.
8. I cannot imagine a serious drama in 3-D.
9. Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology to save the day.
I'm inclined to agree; when I saw Avatar I left the theatre with the most blinding headache I have had in recent memory. While the effect was neat, the novelty wears off pretty fast. The only place where 3d might really add to the overall experience is (maybe) videogames. Still, it seems like a pretty expensive gimmick.
Original link here.
i think the key is that 3d has to be done properly. james cameron intended his movie to be 3d from the beginning, and filmed it as such. movies that were filmed conventionally and then processed into 3d cheaply just to charge more money is going to kill the industry (a la Clash of the Titans)
the guy who seems to get this better than anybody is Michael Bay, who refuses to allow his movies to get turned into 3D, because he doesn't trust the processing system yet.
Agreed. Plot and character development are more important than overpriced 3D movies.