Entertainment Weekly

Stay Connected

Subscribe

Advertise With Us

Learn More

Skip to content

Article

Great Debates: Is seeing a 3-D movie more exciting than 2-D?

Posted on

WETA

“Question Everything” opens the floor for debate of pop culture topics–serious to whimsical, sublime to ridiculous—that have no right or wrong answers but certainly elicit a wide spectrum of intense opinions. Hopefully reading these different perspectives will open minds, challenge thinking and maybe even provoke a change in what you believe. Let’s discuss!

Are 3-D movies worth the extra bucks?

EW’s Critics Make Their Cases

 

Chris Nashawaty says:

2-D: Forget the jacked-up ticket prices and the petri dish state of the glasses — watching movies in 3-D is awful because most 3-D movies are awful. No one should be asked to fork over $20 to see Terminator Genisys (other than the people who made it). Let’s call 3-D what it really is: an upselling scam as blatant as the kid hustling you the supersize popcorn. Occasionally, it enhances a movie (Avatar, Gravity, The Walk). But it’s so rare that Hollywood should be limited to one 3-D movie a year, like an event. Until that happens, I’ll stick with 2-D and forego the scorching case of conjunctivitis.

Melissa Maerz says:

3-D: Yes, there are legitimate reasons to hate bad 3-D movies. But when 3-D really works, no rational argument can trump the visceral, emotional experience of being transformed into a kid again, marveling at the screen. At least one neurologist believes that watching Avatar in 3-D might tap into brain systems undisturbed by two-dimensional movies. Also, 3-D is a potent tool for empathy: Can’t you feel the astronauts’ frustration when they — just like you — can almost grab the lifesaving equipment in Gravity? Purists insist that the best movies don’t rely on 3-D gimmickry because they get to some larger truth about life. But real life has more than two dimensions. Why shouldn’t film? 

 

Comments