By Nathan Thomas
George Washington High School
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- If you go to the movies this weekend, you'll notice at least one film labeled "3D." The number of these movies has risen dramatically in the past few years.
The biggest reason for this, perhaps, is the success of James Cameron's "Avatar," which broke box office records in 2009. Since then, everything from horror movies to animated films to sequels has been made in 3D.
Recently, Martin Scorsese embraced it with his family film "Hugo," which has garnered praise from critics for using 3D not as a gimmick, but as a storytelling element. (The film opened locally on Friday.)
But is having so many 3D movies good or bad? According to some teens, it's the latter. When asked about it, one constant opinion came up: "I'm tired of them."
George Washington High School junior Michaela Hanshew believes 3D movies are a gimmick that has run its course. She thinks Hollywood continues releasing movies in the format just to squeeze more money out of theatergoers.
It's true that movies in 3D burn a hole in the bank. At Marquee Cinemas at Southridge, for example, the price jumps from $8.75 for a 2D movie to $11.25 for 3D. A matinee 3D movie is $9 -- just 25 cents more than a night 2D movie. (Comparatively, a 2D matinee is $6.50.) If you're dating, multiple that by two and factor in snacks. By the end of the night, you'll have paid at least $30!
Another complaint against 3D is that the glasses decrease the colors in films. Because of this, very bright movies like "Rio" aren't as colorful, and already dark pictures like "Harry Potter" become even darker.
Roger Ebert noted this in his essay "Why I Hate 3D (And You Should Too)," published in Newsweek in April 2010. He also argued that it adds nothing to the experience, called it distracting and complained that it gives him nausea and headaches. Additionally, he said he "couldn't imagine a serious film like 'Up in the Air' or 'The Hurt Locker' in 3D."