2010 zal voor de film industrie door het leven gaan, als het jaar dat ze iedereen 3D films door de strot duwde. Zo was Avatar (2009) een heel goed voorbeeld wat je met 3D kan bereiken, maar het belabberde Clash of the Titans was het schoolvoorbeeld van hoe het niet moest.De website Craccked.com heeft vier redenen op een rij gezet, waarom 3D films niet hoeven te zuigen.

Create a World with Depth, Rather Than Make Shit Fly Out at the Viewer

One of the biggest complaints people have about 3D (other than, "$20 FOR A MOVIE TICKET???") is that they think it's gimmicky when things pop out of the screen at you. Some people enjoy that, and it's good for campy horror flicks like My Bloody Valentine or cheesy kids' movies, but many people feel like it takes them out of the story.

That's because when a hand comes out of the screen at you, you can't help but realize that you are sitting in a theater and looking at a screen. That's the whole point of the trick. "I'm sitting in a movie theater, and the movie is somehow coming out of the screen at me. Isn't that wild?" It's literally breaking the fourth wall.

But most movies rely on suspension of disbelief, expecting you to feel for a couple of hours like the world on that screen is real, and the people in it matter, and giant body parts coming at you just ruins that (unless you're watching porn). The majority of the time, you don't want 3D to come into your world.
You want it to pull you into their world.

The most dramatic way 3D can do this is with big landscapes, like in Avatar, Up and How To Train Your Dragon. If you've ever been to some grand natural attraction like Banff or the Alps, you might have noticed your crappy snapshots fail to capture the magnificence of the real thing.

Part of that is that you're a bad photographer, and part of it is that the grandeur of looking at the real thing comes from depth. That's what makes it feel so big, that your two eyes are telling you it goes on forever.

In the same way, 3D can one-up a traditional movie when showing a vast landscape of flying islands or a dragon flying in and out of crazy rock formations.

Instead of shouting "HEY LOOK IT'S 3D," you just follow the main character's flight, like you're used to doing in many movies, only the main character actually has somewhere to go, because the scene goes deep beyond the screen.

A big 2D landscape can impress you, but only as much as a good painting could. A big 3D landscape can make you feel like you're in it, which can make you feel small or alone, and I'm sure you can remember plenty of movies where that feeling could be important to the story. And this doesn't just apply to backgrounds. On a flat screen, a massive army or gigantic crowd just looks like a bunch of faces crowded close together. In 3D you can see each row separately, so you can actually see for yourself how far back the crowd goes (answer: really far).


You can even see if there are big gaps between rows, which kind of sucks for the artists, who could have gotten away with those in 2D. With 3D, movies can show how big an approaching army really feels from the defenders' perspective, without having to cut away to aerial shots to make the point.