In 2009 we saw Digital 3D hit a new found high with James Cameron’s Avatar, which went on to win Best Picture at the Golden Globes last week. Other 2009 films released in 3D include Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Monsters vs. Aliens, Up, My Bloody Valentine and many others.  However, this list pales in comparison to the recently announced news that George Lucas, after seeing the technology behind Cameron’s film, is finally ready to re-release the original Star Wars films in 3D.  Is this crazy?  Do these guys know what this means?

Now I’m a huge fan of the digital 3D and I get why every studio and filmmaker is finding an excuse to try it out (and make a profit), but does that mean that every movie has to be 3D or re-released for 3D?  Like every new breakthrough in filmmaking it must be used when it is advantageous to the story being told. Consider a film like Steven Soderbergh’s The Good German (2006), which told a Casablanca-esque tale of love and loss in post-WWII Germany. In order to visually convey the classical storytelling, the technology was “downgraded” (shot on Kodak 35mm, 4:3 aspect ratio, black and white emulsion) for effect.

Now, ironically, upgraded tech now means shooting a film that requires glasses to be properly watched. Just last week it was rumored that films like Clash of the Titans and Robin Hood were going to have some 3D added in post-production. And though these rumors are reportedly untrue (Titans is still being deliberated), the gossip itself echoes the winds of change.

When synchronized audio was introduced into film with The Jazz Singer (1927) there were many naysayers arguing against the standstill the visual camera was brought to due to the bulky, fragile nature of microphones. Over 80 years later, sync sound is just the beginning of an array of sound effects that go into each and every motion picture. How about when Panavision introduced, in 1954, the ability to shoot films in a 16:9 aspect ratio instead of the then-standard 4:3? I’m sure there were people claiming that this was ludicrous as well. Just as with sound, they were silenced by progress.

The truth is I don’t know how I would view those improvements if I was alive back then. I probably would be jumping at the chance for these to become mainstream and industry standards because they are so integral to making it not only easier but more interesting for a filmmaker to put his story on screen for me to enjoy.  With the addition of sound in 1927 we are now able not only to hear the dialogue (which is basically the story of a film) but also the ambient sounds that both transport us into the film while providing a real life context are ears can latch on to. When filmmakers began shooting in 16:9, the focus in the frame could actually be placed off center so as to display more of this setting, which can sometimes be more beautiful than the focal point of the performer.

Where 3D differs from these past advancements is in its apparent lack of story enhancement. 3D it doesn’t give the story any real huge addition that is integral to viewer’s enjoyment of the film (other than the eye candy factor). What does 3D add? A sense of depth? Yes. A better (or deeper) understanding of the story we are being told? No. Am I just being the naysayer at the introduction of this new technology like those in 1927 and 1954? Possibly, but it’s because I can’t imagine throwing out all of the progress that came before just to move in this direction.

Directors who’ve spent decades hand-making frames (splicing, painting, copying, layering etc.), developing a physical sense of depth, appear to be rendered trivial thanks to this new technology. Are you telling me that since now Uwe Boll can afford to buy himself a 3D camera I should herald his sense of depth, regarding his shortcuts at the same level I would regard the organic special effects in a Hitchcock movie?  Let us not forget that Jackass 3D is coming, thanks to this new technology that Avatar has given us. It’s not a guarantee, but I’d bet Jackass 3D won’t be dubbed “cinematic genius.”

Is 3D only a fad or will it actually become a new way of seeing films? I hope it will find a happy medium and become its own genre. But with things like 3D TVs showing at this year’s CES, a mere genre seems improbable. 3D will eventually be coming into our homes, making it almost impossible to ignore the potentiality of it completely taking over. It’s even tougher with big name stations like ESPN already looking into giving us live 3D broadcasts of our favorite sports matches. How can this new wave be ignored? I, personally, am happy with my 2D films and even happier to watch my Manchester United games in 2D.

I’m not here to discredit 3D films completely. While the introduction of sound and 16:9 was a logical progression for film in general, 3D feel like window dressing being sold as the full package. The effect should be an optional progression, used on a case-by-case basis and not used as an industry standard across the board. When you, as a director/producer/studio exec, decide that you want your film to be in 3D, please make sure it isn’t just for the extra $3 per ticket or to cripple piracy. If 3D truly is the next step, step cautiously and with good intentions.

What are your feelings on 3D?