Is 3D a tool to enhance film or a unnecessary gimmick?

 Recently on Ebert Present at the Movies, the critics had a talk about 3D. This inspired me to share my own opinion on this interesting and debatable topic. 

You can argue when this craze started but I will say back in the year 2004 a film called The Polar Express was released which for me was my first 3D film. The film was very popular and just was a true magnificent sight to see. The film was one of the first films of the 2000's and it payed off. This was the true start to the phenomenon.

  

 Now a few years later a few more films started to use technique such as Bolt, Beowulf, and Monster House. All three films had an enhanced look and were all approved by critics to see in 3D. The problem is all three of these film under performed (Bolt was off its budget by 30 million Beowulf 60 million). It seems 3D  has been improved but it all might end with the films bombing in the box office.

 

 Then came the year 2009. The 3D year opened with the first stop motion animation film in 3D Coraline. The film opened to huge critical success having an 89 percent on the Rotten Tomato meter and later earning a best animated feature Oscar nod. The film also did well financially grossing 76 million domestic to become the highest grossing film animated film of all time (until this year Gnomeo and Juliet broke the record). Things were looking up for 3D.

 Now we fast foreword to later on in the year with three more animated films coming out Ice age 3, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and A Christmas Carol. The films overall had good critical success (except for Ice Age 3) and all were said to have demonstrated 3D well. The films made a killing in the box office (Ice Age 3 became the highest grossing Ice Age, Cloudy had third highest September gross, and Carol grossed 318 million worldwide). Now the trend is becoming a trademark for animation but will it ever branch out.

 Now we come to the end of December with James Cameron's newest blockbuster Avatar which was shot in 3D. The film became a box office juggernaut becoming the highest grossing film in all time grossing a total of 2.7 billion dollars. The film also was nominated for 9 Oscars including Best Director and Picture. Even thought it only won three of those nomiantaions, Avatar had proved that 3D can greatly enhance a film and earn the film a boat load of money.

 Now we enter 2010 and right out of the gate we start out with three animation films, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans. Alice in Wonderland came out right after the Avatar craze and it really benefit from that. The film was a box office success grossing a billion dollars. The problem here is that critics and audience had mild complaints that the 3D darkened the film and made it easier to watch in 2D. Is this a warning sing of what to come? 

 Then came How to Train Your Dragon coming out only a few weeks after Alice. Unlike Alice the film was a huge critical success becoming known as one of Dreamworks best film and one of the best films of the year. The critics loved the 3D and the films majestic flying sequences. The film later earned a Oscar best animation nod for its quality. The film was also a financial success not grossing as much as Alice but still bringing in a fine profit. Alice must have been a 3D mess up.

 Then came Clash of the Titans. When Titans was released critics hated the film calling it the worst 3D film ever released. They claimed that hair was floating over peoples heads and only rocks were brought up to your face. The film was also the first to use post production 3D which is adding in 3D after the film has been filmed. The film may have been a financially success but is this a sign of the end of 3D.

 The rest of 2010 was so-so with 3D. There was they great (Tron Legacy, Resident Evil: Afterlife and Jackass 3D) the average (Shrek Forever After, Yogi Bear, and Despicable Me) and the down right bad (My Soul to Take and Gulliver's Travel). So where is 3D at?

 

 As of now 3D has been extremely over indulgent. Last year around 20 films were released in 3D and this year we are predicted to have twice as many films. This is why most of the films like Pirates of the Carribean 4 and Green Lantern are having so much more of there tickets purchased in 2D rather then 3D. People are smart and no when to cash in there money for 3D for films like Transformers 3. 

 Since most studios release there films in mostly 3D, if audiences do not want to see the film in 3D they film fails. Take for instance Drive Angry the film grossed only 10 million dollars because the film was only released in 3D. Also Green Lantern has been a box office bomb because of having more 3D screens then 2D and no one wants to see the film in 3D.

 So 3D is not a gimmick because it has a enhanced more experience alot of the time with films like Tron, Avatar, and Jackass. Even thought Drive Angry and Green Lantern were films I liked, I am somewhat happy they failed. See now directors and producers are scared that if they make a 3D film, they will get tuned out because the huge amount of 3D films.

 The thing is 3D should become more of a treat then a standard thing for moviegoers. In 2009, the 3D was perfect because it was spread out and they weren't to many films. This allowed more audiences to see it because the 3D was more like an occasionally thing you would take advantage of. Now with nearly 40 3D films coming out in a year, they will not be viewed as much.

 For the next two maybe three years films will have giant amounts of 3D films. I feel thought after that hopefully the 3D is used only by people who know how to use it correctly then just any average joe. I think  3D will become will become what it is suppose to be. A rare way to experience a film.