Say goodbye to 3-D (I hope)

I hadn’t intended to see “Avatar.” It’s not really my kind of thing — besides, I had an image in my head of hokey blue- and red-lens glasses from the 1990s.

But since my friends had already seen “Sherlock Holmes,” I agreed to go along.

The movie was OK — the colors were certainly spectacular — but the 3-D (even though the glasses had been upgraded) wasn’t my thing.

It gave me a headache, actually, and I was a little sick to my stomach, though that might have been because of the massive amount of popcorn I consumed. All in all, I was pretty glad 3-D movies were few and far between.

I hadn’t counted on the success of “Avatar.”

It was a hit, giving director James Cameron the highest-grossing movie ever. And it was a hit in 3-D — which meant everything else wanted to be in 3-D, too.

It seems like every movie that’s been released since “Avatar” has had a 3-D option. “Avatar” was so popular that other movies must gain attention from being in 3-D, right?

Not when everyone’s doing it.

The problem with 3-D mania is that Cameron used special equipment to shoot Avatar so it would actually look good in 3-D — a tactic the other films just didn’t employ.

I’ve been avoiding the other 3-D movies, but I’m told the effects aren’t as good and that the 3-D aspect is just a few cheap 3-D tricks (which isn’t OK unless the Muppets are doing it).

The movies don’t look as good, and they’re pretty much the same in 2-D.

That hasn’t stopped producers from continuing the trend, but luckily, 2-D versions are available. My head and eyes give thanks — “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” is going to be a long movie to sit through if I can’t get the 2-D option.

However, it seems 2-D remains more common, and to see the 3-D version you have to find the one theater in town that’s showing it.

Even after “Avatar,” I don’t see what the big deal is about 3-D. Maybe it was cool, but I like my movies not reaching out of the screen at me.

They’re overdone, more expensive (as if movies aren’t overpriced already) and, as I said, a bit painful. Plus, the glasses are hard to put on over my own — and I’m not going to get over my fear of contacts to watch a movie.

I won’t be getting a 3-D television anytime soon.

I love movies as much as the next person (or possibly more than the next person — my friends and I were the only college students in the theater seeing “Despicable Me” last weekend), but I have no wish to further enhance the experience by seeing everything in 3-D.

I sincerely hope the success of “Avatar” won’t be repeated, that not enough people will pay extra to see perfectly nice movies in 3-D and that the idea will go the way of KFC’s Double Down — not bringing in enough profit to be worth it.


E-mail: hanns@indiana.edu