3D just annoys me because it is a line of film artistry that I don't think should be crossed. We are so enthralled with the visuals in a film that we want to reach out and touch them, as if we are there, part of the shock and awe?
I think that goes directly against what film started out as: plays onscreen. That is how I still define a film- a story told by said group of persons taped for us to see again and again. I think all this mucking things up with effects is ruining the storytelling system.
Its to the point where the story doesn't matter if the effects are good- ie Avatar. The story is a thin rip of every sf cliche out there, but no one cares because it looks good. Remember the days when effects were bad, but if the story was good, no one cared. That is why Doctor Who has lasted as long as it has. That is why Blake's 7 is a classic. That is effing why we have smartphones and readers just like mother hubbing Star Trek!
Someone saw that paperplate flying saucer in Flash Gordon and had dreams and the imagination to go where the story took them. If its all visually there with no substance, where does one go from here?
Back on topic, Crystal Skull just did hohum in theaters and in dvd/br sales and it is going to be rereleased in 3d? Who is supposed to care? How about all the 70th Anniversary films from 1940 get proper video treatment instead?
