Before I begin with my tirade against cinema’s newest gimmick, allow me to bring you up to speed. We all remember the red and blue glasses of old and the crappy movies we watched wearing them (Jaws is coming at us so . . . slowly!). That miserable technology is called Anaglyph. Well, there’s a new 3D appearing in your cinemas, and its name is uncannily appropriate: Polarization. The Polarization method (or digital stereoscopic projection) projects two superimposed images run through polarizing filters. To merge the two images and create the 3D effect, clear, polarized glasses that contain another set of filters must be worn by the audience. The drawback to these new glasses—besides looking a bit like Tom Cruise’s Risky Business shades—is a dimming effect. But that’s a small price to pay for 3D . . . right?

You’ll notice that 3D movies are now offered in various flavors, like “IMAX 3D,” “RealD 3D,” “Disney Digital 3-D,” etc. Most of these operate by similar methods, but there are some differences. From what I understand, RealD is a newer method and produces a crisper image, while IMAX 3D is older and utilizes a different method of polarization. There are, of course, zealots on both sides who argue for linear polarization over circular, but let’s not wade into those murky waters. The only constant among these various methods is that you’ll have to pay $3-$5 extra to experience them. You didn’t think you’d get a whole extra dimension for free, did you?

The box office jockeys will tell you that this extra fee is for the glasses, but, really, the money is used for installation and maintenance of specialized projectors. Of course, this justifies a small increase, but $3-$5 isn’t a small amount when you consider the already steep price of standard, non-3D shows. Variety recently reported on a Greenfield survey that revealed an 8.3% increase for standard 3D cinemas and a 9.9% increase for IMAX 3D screens. For an adult ticket, that’s an average of $14.73 for regular 3D screens and $16.63 for IMAX 3D screens. Many industry analysts believe the high ticket prices will prove to be a shortsighted misstep that will eventually suffocate the technology—especially considering that 3D has already made it to the home video stage. Why should a family of four spend upwards of $50 (not including concessions) to see a 3D film once at the cinema when they could own it for $25?

Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against 3D, at least theoretically. 3D can be a very exciting experience, one which I don’t mind paying extra for (to a point). The problem is that most “3D” films are fraudulent. Allow me to explain. You or someone you know most likely saw James Cameron’s magnum opus, Avatar. And, most likely, you—or that person you know—were impressed by the film’s extra dimension. Having already seen several 3D movies myself, I wasn’t excited about sitting through a two and half hour film that looked vaguely like Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Cats by way of Braveheart. I was still unconvinced of the technology’s merits. I like to say that 3D must operate by one rule: immersion over protrusion. That is, 3D (like color, widescreen and surround sound before it) must become a narrative tool, not a cheap parlor trick, in order to become worthwhile. Having Beowulf’s sword jutted in my face adds very little to my sense of adventure. So, I walked into Avatar a skeptic . . . but left a convert. Diving, swooping and running through the jungles of Avatar’s alien world added an immersive breadth to the film or, if you like, an added dimension. It became the example by which all others would be judged. And the reason Cameron’s 3D worked so well? Why, innovation, my dear Watson: Cameron shot the film with stereoscopic 3D cameras that he co-invented just for Avatar.

So why do I claim that most 3D films are fraudulent? If you’ve seen a live action 3D film post-Avatar, you probably noticed a fairly steep decline in quality. The reason for this is that most other live action films that have been branded as “3D” were actually shot using standard 2D cameras and then processed (or converted) during post-production to be shown in 3D cinemas. Sure, the illusion of 3D is sort of present in these processed films, but if you’re going to pay so much more for your ticket, don’t you deserve to experience the real thing?

The list of fraudulent 3D films is long, including The Final Destination, Alice in Wonderland and, most recently, Clash of the Titans. Actually, Clash of the Titans may be the best example yet of the mishandling of the technology. There’s already widespread dismissal of the film’s pointless 3D effects. I found these dismissals amusing while viewing a 2D print of the film. It became clear that Warner had “advised” director Louis Leterrier to thrust objects at the audience a few times each reel, just in case a 3D option was desired at the time of release. So, basically, concern over 3D hindered both versions of the film. Well done.

Animation functions a bit differently since most modern animation is created completely in the digital realm, i.e., I don’t believe special cameras are needed (save for stop-motion films like Coraline). That doesn’t mean Mickey and Goofy aren’t taking you for a ride, too, though. Certain studios simply convert their animation to 3D, much like I described for live action. Thankfully the animation studios are getting better. Even Disney is now fully rendering their films for 3D.

Making matters worse is the reported strong-arming by studios who feel so passionate about their 3D products that they feel it necessary to threaten cinemas. Recently, Paramount warned that if screens weren’t cleared for 3D prints of their How to Train Your Dragon, they wouldn’t provide 2D prints. I’m sure similar threats have been made on behalf of many upcoming 3D films.

What this means for audiences—if you’ll allow me to speculate—is that the cinema/studio Ouroboros that has been feasting on its own tail since the beginning of time will now begin to devour itself much faster. I’ll attempt to avoid hyperbole, as cinema has survived fads before; but in order to facilitate the onslaught of 3D films, new projectors will have to be installed and fewer non-3D films will get the chance to feature on quality screens in the multiplexes. This means higher ticket prices, less cinematic variety, more expensive concessions, and even more preshow ads. And that’s not even covering the suggested, abominable process of converting old films to 3D. “Finally, I’ll be able to sit through Casablanca without falling asleep!” Vomit. There’s also the issue of removing choice. If you want to take the family to see Toy Story 3 and your cinema chooses not to screen the 2D version, you either shell out the extra cash, or wait for DVD. I can see the devastated look on your kids’ faces now.

So, is 3D worth all this trouble? (Aside from medical advancements, that is.) I think my opinion is clear, but it’s the average moviegoer who will decide whether 3D’s premium is worth paying. I think even Michael Moore would agree that it’s our capitalistic duty to vote with our wallets. So, the next time you head to the cinema, make sure the film you’re seeing was actually shot in 3D. Don’t fall prey to marketing hype and the promise of “eye-popping” thrills when you’re actually paying for half-assed efforts. If the movie was shot for 2D, see it in 2D. Don’t let that attractive 3D logo become obligatory to your cinema experience. And if your cinema doesn’t offer a 2D option, complain to the manager, write a letter to the studio, chain yourself to the Shrek 4 display and refuse to leave the theatre, etc. Fight the power. Beware the third dimension.

Or in other, NSFW words:

Video by Iguana Man