3D is Way Overrated

The last few movies I’ve seen have been 2D, and that is by choice.

Yep, regular old flatpic films.  Why? 

Not because of price.  Well, maybe a little.  It is a bit more expensive to see them, but as a percentage of the total cost of the four of us going out to a movie, not much.  However, that dollar each does add up.

Not because I’m some kind of luddite who doesn’t like new advances.

Mainly because it doesn’t matter.  The nature of the film format doesn’t change my desire to see it in 3D vs 2D.  If it’s a film I want to see, I want to see it.  The way I see it is this:

3D won’t save a bad movie from being bad because it’s a bad story, and a good movie will be good regardless of whether it’s 3D or not because it’s a good story.

Story first, it’s as simple as that.  When most 3D movies seem to be the shallow-field post-production style, which isn’t that great, and I have to wear glasses to watch them (something I paid good money several years ago to eliminate via laser), then I have to ask, what is the point?

Granted, some films are good in 3D when they’re made that way to begin with (i.e. 3D cameras or digital creation), such as “How to Train Your Dragon.”  Others are reasonably pretty to look at or were written with 3D in mind.  They are few in number, and still just as good on my regular old 2D home screen as they were in 3D.

I’m tired of the 3D fad, and would appreciate the continued production of well-written, well-acted films in 2D that I can go and enjoy.  Leave the 3D to the few that warrant it, or the IMAX crowd (I grant,  some of those IMAX 3D can be some kind of cool).