One must not forget that the movie business is first and foremost, a way of making money, and the movie business is doing as much as possible to wring as much money as possible out of the current 3D fad. To begin with, much like the advent of DVD and Blu-Ray discs, the revival of 3D meant that studios could go back and re-release popular films in 3D, with plans to convert Star Wars to 3D as well as James Cameron’s Titanic. It also meant that studios could convert films to 3D post-production. This method of producing 3D films has been criticised for the poor 3D results it produces, this hasn’t equated into poor box office results, with many studios risking the 5-10% increase in production costs, for greatly increased profits.

And so here we are in 2011, with almost 100 Hollywood films to be released in 3D this year, meaning 3D is well and truly here to stay, benefiting from the ridiculous amounts of money made from 3D films, the technology is developing at a quicker rate than ever before, but how far can we take 3D technology? And what artistic credibility does it lend to film as a medium, if any? Though many would say this current generation of 3D is just another phase, much like it was 20, or even 50 years ago, what if these naysayers are underestimating the technology available to film makers, and the effects that film makers might possibly be able to implement in the near future.

I would argue that 3D is a nuisance, both as a consumer, and in terms of the film industry in general, it is holding back the film industry,  and possibly even hurting the chances of would be film makers. To begin with 3D in action is something, I would argue, that adds nothing to the cinema experience, maybe even detracting from it. Not only does the ticket cost you more but when watching the film the glasses make the image look much darker, as a con of the 3D glasses required, is that they reduce the intake of light into the eye by 50%, in some of the films I have seen this has made it hard to even see what is going on. Also, films that are released in 3D are also released in 2D, this may mean two sources of revenue for the production company, but it also means 3D has never been a necessary part if a movie, only an afterthought.

When looking at the future of the industry, consumers are growing accustomed to the 3D Hollywood blockbuster, as more and more 3D blockbusters are produced, surely will this make it harder for lower budget, and newer directors to appeal to producers, financers, and the audience? One could argue the opposite of this also, the saturation of the market with 3D films could this just lead the mainstream audience to become indifferent to 3D? Though I refuse to completely write off 3D films, I enjoyed Avatar, as well as another few 3D pictures, but the joy of watching Avatar was that it wasn’t just a film, it was an event, a talking point, a movie that everyone had too experience (and everyone did judging by the money it made), it marked a new period of technological cinema, the next step from CGI and effect, however this is a period of cinema that many, including myself, are already finding tiresome.

Of course now we can comment on previous generations of 3D, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but is hindsight something we need to evaluate the current generation of 3D films and film making technology? Could the use of 3D dry up within a few years like it has done a number of times before? These are things that we cannot predict with any great accuracy, but the popularity of 3D has yet to decline, but I would opine that the use of 3D adds no artistic merit to a movie, I would go so far as to say it can undermine a directors mise en scene, and even the way a director approaches a film. If a film is being shot in 3D it requires a director to exploit that extra dimension, someone who will gratify the audience with the novel but still gratuitous 3D.

Tagged in