I can’t remember my first 3D film but I do remember, even as a child, I was not terribly impressed. I’m still not. Very few films need 3D and those that do probably cannot stand on their own. I waver between thinking the technology is purely gimmick or real value. I tend to the former.
I’ve enjoyed some 3D films but never because they were 3D. To name just two I’ve seen recently: Avatar is a visually stunning film with or without 3D while Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows3D was a complete waste of an extra five dollars. Avatar 3D, at the least, added some nice “depth” to the incredible panoramic scenes and made the creatures seem more real. With Holmes I found there to be no advantage and the 3D was distracting.
Of course TV manufacturers like Samsung, Sony, Sharp and Panasonic, among others, are desperate for 3D content but at what cost…the alienating of an already overwhelmed customer base? I now need a 3D HDTV and 3D Blu-ray player and have to replace all my recently purchased Blu-ray discs with 3D. And, I see very little improvement from the original 3D from 50+ years ago. I don’t blame the manufacturers, and they did bring us an excellent product in HDTV, but I’m waiting for the next technological advance. Till then they can do without my few dollars.
My true gripe is the exorbitant price charged to see the “new 3D.” Often I have to pay four or five dollars extra just so I don’t have to travel across town to the only theater with the traditional format. I have seen a couple of adult 3D films that at least gave me the sense I was getting value for my dollar (they were much less than I paid for Avatar).
Now the exception to my new rule (not paying to see 3D): at a recent showing of trailers the re-release of Titanic in 3D was included. It was phenomenal. I might actually pay to see the re-release, it truly looks stunning (but no promises).