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."

Not everyone dislikes 3D, though they might not be thrilled with all aspects of it.

"I like the fact that filmmakers are trying new things. I dislike the extra $2.50 charge," said George Washington freshman Austin Susman, who is a filmmaker himself.

He added that 3D has no influence on whether he sees a movie. "I usually see the movies I want to see. The number of dimensions rarely influences my decision," he said.

George Washington senior Sabah Ahmed likes 3D films but prefers animated ones to live action.

"Animated 3D films are better," she said. "Live action 3D is bad because either the actors are trying too hard to make things appear 3D or they're not putting an effort into their performance."

There will be plenty of 3D films in 2012; however not many of them so far are original. Some aren't even new.

For instance, Disney fans will be able to see "Beauty and the Beast" and "Finding Nemo" back on the big screen with an added dimension. Also George Lucas will begin re-releasing his beloved "Star Wars" series in the third dimension, and James Cameron will re-release "Titanic" in 3D.

Why are they doing this? Some would say it's a creative vision, but more than likely, it's for money. Every one of these re-releases is expected to haul in major profits.

Disney knows that parents will take their kids to see the re-releases, "Star Wars" is one of the most popular franchises of all time and "Titanic" will appeal to lovers (as well as coincide with the disaster's 100th anniversary).

Movies in 3D certainly aren't going anywhere in the near future, and as long as Hollywood executives know a profit can be made from them, they'll continue to be produced. The only way for them to stop is for people to stop going to them, but that's not going to happen. We'll always need an escape from real life, and movies give us that.