is 3-D a fad, or the next evolution in film?

This week, director James Cameron, the guy who reinvigorated 3-D with his blockbuster Avatar had some harsh words for Piranha 3-D, saying films like that cheapen the tool he says is the next evolution of film. According to Cameron, the technique needs to be taken seriously, and not used as a cheap gimmick. There are others that say 3-D has always been a cheap gimmick, and this resurgence is just another way for theaters to make money.

So, on one hand, there are several movies this year like Iron Man 2, or Clash of the Titans that converted the movies to 3-D, not because it will enhance the movie experience, but because 3-D charges more money per ticket. Now, I'm not one of those ignorant people who think Hollywood is driven by artistic integrity, quite the contrary, it's driven by money, and it's simply a business decision, but one that hurts the movie experience.

When you see movies that are converted to 3-D, the movie, in my opinion, looks blurry, especially when there is something in the center "sticking out." There is a noticeable difference in light, too. In fact, 3-D converted movies are 32% dimmer, which takes those set managers with their light meters and gives them the middle finger. Both issues result in noticeable differences, and when your paying more, you should get more.

The other hand has two pretty convincing points in Avatar and movies like Piranha 3-D and Resident Evil 3-D. These movies can stand alone, sure, but they actually enhance the experience. In the case of Resident Evil and Piranha, it's a gimmick, but it's an enhancement to the movie experience, and in the case of Avatar, well, it takes a normal movie experience and amps it up to something amazing. Sure movies make more money, but it's art, and a better movie experience overall.

So, I agree with James Cameron that crappy movies can hurt the image of what is a promising tool for directors, but I don't agree Piranha 3-D is guilty of that. The movie successfully used the tool to enhance the movie experience, something not all 3-D movies do, which does hurt the image of the tool. And, yes, I think it's a useful tool, like many other techniques in film, but I don't think it's the next evolution in film.

What do you think?