If someone asked me a few years ago if 3D was ever going to catch on I'd have probably said no. As far as development of the technology went in my eyes, the concept wasn't going to become any more advanced in the long run, it would just keep up with the times. And for the most part, here today in 2011, it has done exactly that. Okay, it might be a little more advanced that the days of watching post-converted 3D films at the cinema with those horrendous red and blue lensed glasses, but can you really say the actual concept has been progressed so that we are receiving something new and ingenious?
As far as the film industry goes, 3D is primarily there as a means of making extra revenue per film. So in that sense, there is a perfectly viable reason for film makers to take this opportunity with both hands. A good example of this was with the 2010 adventure movie - Clash of the Titans. The whole product was filmed entirely for standard 2D release, shortly before the '3D revolution' had really kick started. Somewhere along the line in post production, the film makers must have caught on to something. 'If we convert our film into three dimensions, we'll double our winnings at the box office!' Why? Because they'd get more viewers through the 'but it's in 3D' advertising technique and ultimately, ticket prices would have to rise (so that viewers can cover the cost of those hideous glasses). Having not actually watched it first hand, I'd have to rely on reviews (and the overwhelming majority) to determine whether the release was a hit with the public... or not. All sources led to one conclusion, the film makers were taking advantage of fans by offering a second rate post-converted headache of a movie. And that's what all 3D technology is about. Getting more cash off us - the paying public!
Toy Story 3. A terrific movie and another asset to Pixar's long line of dazzling masterpieces. After around fifteen minutes I lost the connection with the 3D side of the production and didn't particularly recognise the fact that the film was (apparently) jumping out of the screen. I could have quite easily paid one or two pounds less to watch the exact same movie as a two dimensional product. Waste of time and money? For us, but not for them. Disney must have been raking in the extra cash. 3D has not only conquered the film industry, television is now feeling the full force of the media hammer. Just as High Definition television is becoming popular, a new contender arrives on the scene. And the industry knows all too well that the public want the newest and most up-to-date pieces of kit on the market. That's why manufacturers can put a £1000+ price tag on any new television, which bears all of the same features as your old one, apart from the fact that it requires you to sit in front of it wearing silly glasses. Soon enough, 3D will seem pretty boring and out-dated to most. About the way I feel regarding it now.
But even when you choose not to watch these films in the 3D form, the movie producers will hit you with the line: 'It's made for 3D, don't watch in 2D because it will ruin the experience.' And that makes me ponder the fact why they release a standard version anyway. It's because of the difference in price. But by this time the audience are going to pay for the most expensive ticket so that they can enjoy the best experience, simply due to them being pressured into it. This is exactly the way I felt about the statement Michael Bay released (regarding my point on being pressured) in his upcoming flick - Transformers: Dark of the Moon. He filmed a lot of this product using 3D cameras, so the point movie makers raised was a fair one when taking into account a high end budget film such as Transformers. I'm definitely going to pay more so that I get the best possible experience out of this film because I enjoyed the first two movies. But not for the 3D... for the peace of mind.