To 3D or Not to 3D?

Nowadays I not only need to decide which movie I want to see but also whether to see it in 2D or 3D. Some movie classics are even being re-released in 3D years after their original record-setting run. The most recent example is Titanic that was originally released more than a decade ago in 2D and will be re-released in 3D this week (yep, the boat still sinks at the end). Granted, this is not our parent’s red and blue glasses kind of stuff, but is it really worth an extra three dollars to see a new movie in 3D or a 3D re-release of a movie you already saw years ago? The next time you find yourself trying to answer that question, I recommend you asking yourself a few more to help you decide.

Is this the type of movie that lends itself to be better in 3D?

I believe that movies that are large in scale and vision lend themselves best to 3D because of the stunning visuals that are integral to bringing the story to life. A atar is a perfect example of a movie that uses 3D effectively to enhance the large landscapes and larger than life creatures to draw the movie-goer into another world. Movies that simply use 3D to make specific scenes “jump off the screen” are in my opinion just a gimmick that do not help drive the story and therefore can be seen in 2D with no loss in the overall movie-going experience. The family movie G-Force is a good example of a gimmick laden 3D movie.

Was the movie filmed in 3D or “modified” to be a 3D movie?

Not all movies are the same and not all movies are filmed in 3D. In fact, filming a movie in 3D requires the use of special dual lens camera equipment. Movies that are not filmed using the special equipment are typically using post-production computer trickery to turn 2D images into 3D images. Worse yet, since films not originally intended to be shown in 3D are not filmed with that in mind it can at times be painfully obvious when a 3D scene or effect has been awkwardly inserted into what is for the most part intended to be a 2D film. Older movies that are being re-released in 3D are in some cases working to avoid this by actually recreating specific scenes to provide more realistic depth but they still rely on computer generated models to achieve the final 3D effect. In the end, it is best to consider whether the director began filming the movie with 3D in mind or whether it was an afterthought because if it was the latter then it will more often than not feel like you paid way too much to watch an afterthought.

How long is the movie?

The question here is simple. Even with the advances in polarized 3D technology there is still an additional strain on a movie-goers eyes watching a 3D movie. If the movie is going to extend past the usual 90 to 120 minute length then you better anticipate some level of eye fatigue. As they say, “No pain, no gain”, but make sure to ask yourself if you would gain just as much watching the 2D version with less pain.

Who is going to see the movie with me?

I am specifically referring to children. I have 3 kids under 9, and taking them to any movie at the local theater is expensive, let alone a 3D movie. What I have discovered is taking a child to a 3D movie and having them not wear the 3D glasses is just a waste of money. Without the glasses the movie is just a big blur and frankly I would rather miss out on some of the beauty 3D can offer if just to make sure that everyone can actually see the movie. So don’t opt for the 3D version unless you are confident everyone who is going will enjoy the experience and keep those darn glasses on.

Ultimately, whether you decide to see a movie in 2D or 3D is up to you, but don’t always assume that 3D is better or worse. It really depends on a variety of factors and the decision should be made on a movie-by-movie basis.

What do you think about 3D versus 2D? Do you use any other factors to determine which one you will see? Don’t forget to comment and help your fellow movie-goers see “all the angles”.