Previous Post Next Post


Brought to you by

The Welcome Death of 3-D

By KJ Dell'Antonia |

If you ask me, 3-D can’t die to soon. Slate’s Daniel Engbar is predicting the death of 3-D movies based on decreasing box office numbers for 3-D versus 2-D versions of the same movies (like Avatar and Despicable Me) and even Toy Story 3–which actually made more on 2-D screens than in 3-D. But it won’t die fast enough for me to avoid the pleas from my kids when Tangled (Disney’s version of Rapunzel) comes out in 3-D this fall. Should I put my foot down, and insist that we stick to the flat version? After all, it seems to have worked for hundreds of thousands of parents of young Buzz and Woody fans. Or can I just count on 3-D’s sliding away, and agree to sit through a few more jumpy, blurry movies before it goes?

If Engbar is right, as the novelty of 3-D wears off, so does our willingness, as an audience, to pay more for it and endure its inconveniences. People jumped through hoops to see Avatar in 3-D, but later movies, like Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon, didn’t see much gain in their 3-D versions (Engbar analyzes revenues from both 2-D and 3-D theatres). You might argue that those just movies with the same blockbuster caliber as Avatar, but Toy Story 3 is the clincher: available both flat and stereoscopic (sometimes in the same theatre), it actually made more money on opening weekend on the 2-D screens. Given a choice, some people chose flat (and I’d be willing to bet that thousands of them were the parents of small children).
What sucks about seeing a movie in 3-D? Bari Nan Cohen elaborated at length earlier this month on why she hates taking her kids to movies in 3-D, and I agree with nearly everything she said. I don’t like wearing the glasses myself. One of my kids consistently takes the glasses off, and that makes me nervous both about her eyesight, and her sheer willingness to sit and gaze fixedly at a lot of blurry figures wandering around on the screen: how hypnotizing is this stuff, anyway? (Incidentally, at least one optometrist says watching 3-D without the glasses is “probably” harmless, which is “probably” reassuring.)

What I find even more annoying is that 3-D requires you to focus on what the director thought was important–try to look past the protruding figures on the screen at the surroundings, and blurry isn’t even the word. This didn’t matter much with suburban Toy Story 3, but I was curious about the backgrounds and scenes of A Christmas Carol, and looking at them really wasn’t an option in a 3-D screening. 3-D becomes just another way to control not just our attention for a couple of hours, but our actual viewing experience (I’ll resist 3D television for the same reason. Sorry, ESPN, sometimes I’m actually more interested in looking at the crowd.) But my older kids, still caught up in the cool factor, are big drivers of our 3-D over 2-D choice.

We’re not huge movie-goers, and seeing a movie actually in the theatre remains a huge treat for my kids, an outing on par with mini-golf, a once a season thing. (Our last movie was in fact Toy Story 3, and before that, The Princess and the Frog, for big kids only.) Given that, I’l probably accept Tangled in the big, heavily promoted 3-D version. When a movie’s an event, I can see some merit in going big. But I hold out hope that Engbar is right, and instead of seeing 3-D invading more and more movies where an extra visual dimension isn’t going to go very far to make up for the 2-dimensional characters on screen, the studios resist an overall 3-D expansion and go back to making movies that let viewers focus on the whole screen.

More on Babble

About KJ Dell'Antonia


KJ Dell'Antonia

KJ Dell'Antonia is a regular contributor to Slate's DoubleX, a contributing editor for Kiwi Magazine and the co-author of Reading with Babies, Toddlers and Twos. She lives in New Hampshire with four kids, two dogs, one husband and a bad coffee habit and blogs about family bonds, balance, and blend at

« Go back to Mom

Use a Facebook account to add a comment, subject to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your Facebook name, profile photo and other personal information you make public on Facebook (e.g., school, work, current city, age) will appear with your comment. Comments, together with personal information accompanying them, may be used on and other Babble media platforms. Learn More.

0 thoughts on “The Welcome Death of 3-D

  1. goddess says:

    3D gives me a headache- and I won’t waste the extra money. Give the kidlets a choice: 3-D or nada.

  2. Voice of Reason says:

    This news could not be more welcome. 3-D is total hype and does nothing to improve the movie-going experience, especially for little kids. It’s been a hassle to schlep to further-away cinemas to see the 2-D versions, but it’s been worth it. Hopefully, this story’s prediction comes true so we’ll be doing less schelpping in the future.

  3. Marj says:

    I can’t stand 3D movies. They are a pointless gimmick, and a good movie doesn’t need it. Heck, I’ll go even more luddite – a good movie doesn’t need superstars or special effects or even color. I will also never take another child to a 3D movie. The last time I did, the kid watched the whole thing without the glasses and was bored.

  4. Kate says:

    I’m wondering why this is tagged “harry potter in 3D”.. Harry Potter isn’t even mentioned in this article.

  5. Melanie says:

    My eldest is getting to the point where I’d like to take him to a movie, but I’m not willing to try one in 3D. He wears prescription eyeglasses, and having to deal with the polarised glasses, added to the general excitement of going to a movie, is more than I’m up for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.

Previous Post Next Post