To 3D or not to Three Dimensional

3D, three dimensional, films have been around since the 1950's and recently have experienced a resurgence in popularity mainly due to the critical and commercial success of James Cameron's Avatar. My first 3D motion picture was last summer's highly successful Disney-Pixar film Up which was utterly charming and went on to win the Best Animated Feature of 2009. This summer, I have seen two 3D features: Disney-Pixar's Toy Story 3 and Universal Studio's Despicable Me.

Some of the questions posed by some viewers and film critics is whether the resurgence of the 3D technology is a cash-grab by the studios, charging viewers $3 extra (in Canada) to see a movie which is also available in regular 2D format. Some say, if you do not want to pay the extra cash, go see it in regular format; the argument is whether studios are contemplating creating movies exclusively in 3D format so that the higher price can be charged. Additionally, would the movie being shown in 3D be just as good, or better, in 2D? I will only speak for Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me - the answer would be yes - these movies are just as good, or better, in 2D.

Roger Ebert has waded into this discussion with both feet and started a conversation about this subject in an article for Newsweek. Not mincing too many words, he even titled the article "Why I Hate 3D and You Should Too". I do not 'hate' 3D however I would hope that it would not be the new standard in movie making. I could not imagine "The Sound of Music" (my favourite movie) in 3D. 3D for 3D sake is a bad idea.