Ask Yourself: Must This Film Really Be 3-D? : Blog Of The Nation Piggybacking on a Wired post, we ask the question: What's gained with the extra dimension? A bunch of hype, sure. But in some cases, much may also be lost, including my hard-earned movie-going dollars.
NPR logo Ask Yourself: Must This Film Really Be 3-D?

Ask Yourself: Must This Film Really Be 3-D?

Nick Veronin at Wired has committed to the page the question that's been on my lips for months: Does every dang movie need to be 3-D now?  Sure, Avatar's special effects were arresting, but does, say, the highly-hyped The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo remake need the 3-D treatment?  I'd fear actually being pierced by Daniel Craig's eyes. Anyway, Veronin lists a handful of upcoming films, and asks the important question: What could be gained with that extra D? The new Pirates of the Caribbean installment, On Stranger Tides, for example, sounds like fun to me.  The Pirates' world is already so vividly strange that I'd pay for a third D. Veronin's not so kind:

Benefit of 3-D: Johnny Depp’s artistic cred represented by an enveloping mist that dissolves as the movie progresses.

It's funny because it's true?  Maybe. But this one makes me want to leave the country:

Jackass 3D (October 2010)
Plot: Johnny Knoxville and his crew get into more painful hijinks.

I'd pass. I had a Jackass phase, I'm not going to lie, but the thought of the milk challenge and its many variations in 3D makes me more than a little queasy.