I read an article by Fortune magazine and it reminded me of the reasons I have not been impressed with 3D films. I remember as a kid going to Orlando and seeing 3D movies with the paper glasses. I would jump as things were thrown out at you and marveled at the technology that made it all possible. Now, as an adult, perhaps I'm just more of a cynic. You see all these previews of movies that look larger then life. The promise amazing adventure, action, and most of all that they will bring you along as the character develops. In reality, what you get is a movie with lots of explosions, characters that despite being in 3D are very flat, and a predictable story. There are a few exceptions but not many. The things I loved about 3D as a kid do not happen here. You never see things come out of the screen and fly past you but rather "real 3D" just adds a little depth to the picture. That little bit of depth comes at a cost though. Because you have a separate image for each eye, each eye only gets half of the light. That means the screen is dark and often less sharp due to our brains attempt to put the two images together. If I have to choose between a dingy slightly more depth or a clear HD quality picture, I think I'll choose HD quality. Nolan in his recent film inception agrees. He refused to jump on the 3D bandwagon saying the quality of the technology just isn't there yet. With that in mind, a same price ticket for both, I might still choose 2D so what about the $4 surcharge 3D tacks on? For me the choice is clear.
Marcie and I are attempting to be more frugal with our money. My Mustang was recently paid off and we hope to have the Torrent paid off by the end of the year. We also want to build up our savings account so paying $26 dollars for two 3D tickets isn't high on our priority list. Blue Ridge's $1.50 tickets and Red Box are about to get a lot more business from us. Two movies we're waiting to see are Inception and Despicable Me.