At some given moment in the history of cinematography someone noticed that by layering colors in specific patterns and make people look at the image through opposite hue lenses the contrast would make the image jump. Being able to see things through three dimensions (just like in real life) seemed to revolutionize how movies could be made and perceived. Of course this all started in the 1970s when the most impressive thing you could do was aim a paddle ball at the screen or other stupid gimmicks that makes stuff jump out to the viewer. Now 3D has become the new hook that makes a movie supposedly a lot better and definitely more expensive. Like the IMAX screens that came before it, the movie was essentially the same but the viewing experience became something completely different. Some movies put in some extra things to highlight the 3D aspects but they follow the same playbook as the 70s. The good ones that make 3D all the more awesome is not the ones that use depth to make things jump but the ones that really flesh out the background. Again, the keyword is depth, not very noticeable but it fleshes the scene out, creating a more immersive viewing experience.
For some reason, marketing directors created an unholy marriage of ideas for getting more money out of a story by tieing together the third installment of a story with 3D. At this point the actual narrative takes a back seat towards making something watchable, or at the very least worth making people pay admission. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the most recent Resident Evil movie. I believe it was technically the fourth in the series but the concept still applies. Don’t remember it, neither does anyone else, that’s how much it sucked. You may have some memory as I do that the trailers for the film did not feature a prominent actor, actress, or director but highlighted the fact that it was filmed with the same type of camera as the one used filming/making the Avatar movie (blue people Avatar, not the horrible waste that was the Airbender movie). Now I must admit that I am a bit biased since I have not seen many movies in 3D and besides the better picture quality I never saw the game changing differences. The sequel in 3D was something that never caught my eye, stupid glasses or not. Much like the intellectual elite film professors, I call it a gimmick.
And yet, 3D makes room for some awesome potential. A few cinematographic gems can be found under the mountains of crap that greedy film companies push upon the masses. Sure there are the ones who still use the same gimmicks since the onset of making depth visible but at the same time made films more flat than ever. I and many others hope for some visionary that can use 3D in ways no one has ever even considered. Maybe then it will be well worth the price of admission and the headache those stupid glasses give me.