Are 3D Films Really Worth the Money?

3D once had a small run back in the early eighties as cheesy sequels converted to this format. The films bombed as well as the gimmicky technology. We're in a new decade, and it seems the 3D technology is back with a vengeance. In the next year or so we'll see dozens of remakes and sequels in 3D, including "Saw 7," "Men in Black 3," "Step it Up 3," and, yes, even "Jackass 3D."

While the concept may intrigue a lot of people, to me it's nothing more than a gimmick. We see these movies that rely on 3D and lack the more important elements, including characters, story, plot, etc.

The number one box office movie of all time, "Avatar," was shot in 3D. But to me the effect didn't really change how I felt about the film. Watching on DVD, I see the film is just as entertaining without the third dimension. This can be another reason this is the highest grossing movie of all time, because tickets to see the 3D version cost roughly four more dollars, bringing the total to almost thirteen dollars in most states, and even up to twenty in Los Angeles.

Another factor that hurts the format is home viewing. Technology has not yet caught up, as watching a 3D film at home is more of a headache as there is no effect, making you want to switch back to the normal version.

Although they are starting to sell 3D televisions at local chain stores, I honestly can't see a high demand as not everyone is jumping on the 3D band wagon as can be seen for Avatar's ticket sales. (Not all tickets sales were for the 3D version.)

Overall some say 3D is helping save the film industry, helping them rake in more money, but I think if films didn't cost $300 million to make in the first place, then there wouldn't be such a struggle to make a profit. We also wouldn't need the 3D either to persuade viewers, which I don't think will last either.

Instead of concentrating on effects so much, maybe they need to go back to what makes such great movies.the story.