MARCIE FOSTER
The Cord (Wilfrid Laurier University)

WATERLOO, Ont. (CUP) — I’ve spent many a Tuesday night going to see the latest that Hollywood has to offer, but now we’re being shown a different kind of movie: The 3D movie.

Although the idea itself is not that new, with most of its heyday occurring in the 1980s, 3D has recently become almost a standard in the movie industry.

James Cameron’s Avatar broke 3D ground last December and with unprecedented profit at the box office and on DVD it is clear that 3D has some financial worth. 3D films generally charge a couple dollars more than regular films.

But are they even worth the extra cash?

I tend to choose to go to “cheap-night” films, because they cost much less to see. With 3D technology, I’m corralled into paying extra money in hopes that the “realism” will contribute to my experience. This is just a load of bull.

Paying more is not the only downside to 3D. We end up having to look quite silly wearing these dorky glasses, which we may or may not choose to recycle after the show. These glasses have been shown to cause headaches and even induce migraines in chronic sufferers, which Robert Powell (inventor of 3D) admits. All of that just for the added effect of some object appearing to fly at you through the screen.

It offers no attempt for artistic value either.

With the 3D tag on a film, viewers will flock to see it simply because of the experience. Recent entrants in the genre have been making ludicrous amounts of money and after seeing them, I can vouch that it’s not about the creative filmmaking or enthralling plot lines. Slapstick movies such as Jackass 3D are making $50 million on opening weekends while non-3D blockbusters fail to even compete.

Theatres that are incapable of showing 3D technology are suffering as well. Prices are going up to compensate for the loss of money just about everywhere.

Now, it seems like a broad generalization to say that offering a movie in 3D discredits its artistic value or merit. It is, however, simply a consequence of following the fad. 3D movies focus on delivering an “experience” to the viewer rather than delivering the film itself. Less focus is put on the details of plot and character development and more placed on realism.

Are 3D movies even all that real? 3D technology seems to be a step backwards in the chronology of movie realism. We were just getting to the pinnacle of viewing pleasure with high definition and now 3D is back in the picture.

Aside from that, high definition focuses on actual realism, whereas 3D focuses on experience. High definition, even though incorporated into today’s modern 3D technology, offers little more than what life looks like, rather than experiencing life itself.

With that in mind, when you pay the $15 it costs to see a 3D movie, ask yourself whether it would be different or even better without the 3D technology? If the answer is yes, then you probably will need to find another theatre soon.