3D or not 3D, that is the question...

3D or not 3D, that is the question…

Much has been made of the recent explosion of 3D movies coming to a theater near you. Ever since the success of Cameron’s Avatar it seems that every studio is trying to jump on what is being touted as the next evolutionary step in movies. Now with the influx of 3D TVs, the promise of adding that extra dimension to everything from sports to videogames is having consumers ask the question “3D or not 3D?”

It seems the easy answer to this question is no. That is to say that you should not waste your time with 3D in the movies or at home. All one has to do is remember that 3D is actually not new and has popped in and out of style for decades. I can still remember begging my parents as a child to see Freddy’s Dead the first in the Nightmare on Elm St franchise to have some of the movie presented in 3D, only to be denied the opportunity and left to wonder what it must have been like. I’m sure now that my visions of Freddy Kruger’s gloved hand coming out of the screen were much more visceral then the actual movie, which was at best gimmicky.

I guess the big difference between today’s 3D and the 3D of yesteryear is the advance of 3D technology. Movies like Avatar are actually “shot” with 3D cameras and then the effect is reproduced with advanced 3D glasses that provide much more depth then the old red & green cardboard glasses. Then there are rumblings of TVs that will allow you to perceive depth without the use of special glasses, which would eliminate many consumers’ complaints about how uncomfortable the glasses are to wear.

It’s really a tough call as to whether or not 3D has lasting potential. This may be an obscure reference to non-wired readers, but something about the 3D craze is very reminiscent of virtual reality in the 90s. For those of you that don’t remember, Virtual Reality became a hot topic after it became popularized by movies like The Lawnmower Man in which an engineer is exploring the potential of technology that immersed the user in a virtual world. Using goggles and a headset to produce 3D images and sound and a special suit to interact in the environment using ones hands and feet, VR was supposed to completely mimic reality. Sounds cool right? It did then too. The problem was that most people could not afford the expensive equipment and the actual technology wasn’t nearly as advanced as Hollywood portrayed it to be. At the time, VR was considered the wave of the future in terms of entertainment much in the same way 3D technology is today.

Ultimately, like everything else, it’s going to be up to consumers to vote with their wallets. Is going to see a movie in 3D worth those extra 2-3 dollars? Is the idea of playing videogames in 3D appealing enough to gamers to drive the sales of 3D ready TVs? After all, gamers buying Blu-Ray ready Playstation 3’s decided the war between Sony’s Blu-Ray and Toshiba’s HD DVD formats. Can retailers convince those of us who are just now catching up to HD in our living rooms to throw down the money to go 3D? I’m not really sure, I guess it’s just a matter of perspective…