Movies in the Third Dimension

The first 3-D movie I can remember watching was epic. It was incredible. I still love it today. It was Jaws 3-D. Seeing the shark pop out at you (mind you I was a pre-teen) was awesome. The paper glasses with the red and blue lenses, not so much.

3-D films used to be a novelty trick, a way to sell an otherwise forgettable film. I'll admit (begrudgingly) that Jaws 3 probably isn't one of the better films made in the last 30 years. The 3-D aspect of it probably helped at the box office (though I doubt even 3-D technology, a free Happy Meal, and a back rub could have helped Jaws 4.....).

In the past few years, 3-D has made a comeback. More shows have begun incorporating it (Medium, Chuck and Arrested Development, to name a few). And the technology has greatly improved at the local theater thanks to cutting edge digital filmmaking. In 2009, I started embracing the 3-D revolution. I went to see "My Bloody Valentine" in 3-D because of the novelty of it, and it certainly made cartoons like "Up" and "Coraline" pop.

But now 3-D is everywhere. At this time last year, there was only one theater in SLO County that had a 3-D screen. Now, the Park Cinemas boasts three of them (they only have nine screens total), and that's barely enough to keep up. "Alice in Wonderland," "How to Train Your Dragon" and "Clash of the Titans" all opened within a month of one another, and all were offered in 3-D.

And that's just the beginning.

You see, Hollywood is looking for a little more bang for its buck. Prices at the box office have steadily risen, and with the rise of 3-D those prices are only getting higher. It's hard to blame executives for wanting to cash in. Look at "Avatar," which smashed a box office record belonging to "Titanic" ($1.8 Billion, yes I said billion) that figured never to be broken. Prior to "Avatar," the closest any film had gotten to "Titanic's" epic haul was "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," which grossed $1.1 billion worldwide.

"Avatar" has brought in a ridiculous $2.7 billion and counting. Why? Because it was shown in both 3-D and 2-D, each of which drew repeat viewings and shot profits through the roof. In Paso Robles, it costs $3 more per ticket to see a film in 3-D. Imagine that on a global scale with a universally popular film. Yet another reason to hate James Cameron....

I don't have anything against 3-D. It's fun, the technology has improved greatly (though the glasses could still use some work), and it's the next big thing in entertainment. But just throwing a movie into 3-D isn't enough, a good movie needs a good story. Did the 3-D effects make "Alice in Wonderland" more entertaining? Sure. Did they make it a great film? No, it had too many story problems. Same for "Clash of the Titans" and even box office champ "Avatar" were lacking, severely, in the story department.

Let's hope that, in addition to putting films in formats that generate the most cash possible, studio executives also start remembering there's more to making a movie than how much money it can generate at the box office.