I want to love 3D movies. Sometimes I actually do. Coraline was beautiful. U23D -- and I'm not a huge U2 fan -- made me think that while 3D is still a gimmick in narrative film, there's no reason a concert film should be shot in any other format.
But every time some critic or studio suit goes on about the old days when bad 3D technology gave audiences headaches, I get, well, a headache. As I've been telling everyone throughout this latest generation of 3D technology (my Facebook friends can confirm this) the films give me moderate to severe eyestrain every single time, without fail. I'll suffer it if I really think the effect is going to add something artistically (and the film isn't too long) but for something like Monsters Vs. Aliens, I'll be seeing it the old fashioned way, thank you very much.
Today in Slate, Daniel Engber also calls bullshit on the no-headaches myth, and explains why the technology is inherently and unfixably hard on the eyes. But what jumped out at me, so to speak, was this claim by Jeffery Katzenberg that someday "people are going to own their own glasses -- I think from a fashion standpoint and a coolness standpoint, people will want to have their own glasses."
I knew studio execs were out of touch with audiences, but does he really not know that movie theaters won't let you wear your own glasses? Or rather, they will, but you still have to pay for the new ones. Obviously when the new generation of 3D began I saved my first few pairs of specs so that I could avoid the $2-$3 surcharge the next time. But I quickly wised up that what's billed as a charge for the glasses is, of course, just an extra charge for the movie itself, like paying more for IMAX. So why would anyone pay for their own glasses on top of the extra fee they're already being charged?
Mark my words, Avatar will be the swan song of this generation of 3D.*
*More a hope than a prediction.
