The difference between 3D movies when I was a child and 3D movies now is palpable. As an eight-year old at Disney World, I was taken by my mom to see the Muppet Movie in 3D, and I remember making a mental effort to help the movie create the illusion of three dimensions. I wanted to see the movie in 3D, so I strained and strained to find the images that were supposed to be popping out at me. I left feeling under whelmed; watching movies in 3D was draining.

This summer, I went to two movies in 3D: The Disco Dolls in Hot Skin and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Hot Skin is a 1978 John C . Holmes adult film; it was screened at midnight at the Uptown Theatre. At the door we were given paper glasses with one red plastic lens and one blue plastic lens, reminiscent of my Muppet experience. Twenty minutes and one giant dildo looming out of the screen later, the novelty of 3D porn had worn off. The 3D effects were just as difficult to catch as they were at Disney World in 1995 , and the plot of the film wasn’t nearly as charming.

So when my friend got free tickets to Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D at the AMC multiplex in Roseville, I reluctantly dragged myself out of the house, anticipating the gross amount of effort it would take for me to go through the 3D motions once again. I was surprised, therefore, when I was handed a pair of plastic glasses not unlike those given to me by the eye doctor after he dilates my pupils. Like the glasses, the quality of the 3D I saw at Journey to the Center of the Earth excelled far beyond either of my previous 3D experiences. After seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth, I would go to any new 3D movie – I am more captivated and startled by 3D effects now as a young adult than I was as an eight-year-old . I have a friend who likes to claim that 3D is the new theater experience and that soon all movies in the theater will jump off the screen. Is that true? I hope not, but who knows? Most people thought the VCR would never catch on, either.

While the basis of three-dimensional or stereoscopic filmmaking is not new, new techniques have emerged in recent years. 3D movies in the past have largely been used to awe audiences and give them something to be excited about when going to theatres. However, none of these movies have been considered classics or films of great substance. The recent revival of stereoscopic film in theatres (e.g. Coraline, My Bloody Valentine in 3D, Beowulf) has been accused of being a gimmick to solve poor theatre attendance. While recent popularity of the technology may in fact be an attempt to increase ticket sales, supporters argue that 3D is no longer a gimmick employed to create mere thrills , but instead the future of filmmaking.

Director, producer and writer James Cameron sees stereoscopic technology as a tool that only needs to be properly implemented by directors to be successful. This means, composing and directing films with the notion that they will also be viewed in 2D in homes or theatres that lack equipment to project stereoscopic films . During actual filming, Cameron states that only a few small adjustments need to made in lighting and camera placement to achieve a successful stereoscopic image. Just as there
exists a camera team to actively make decisions about things like focus on set, Cameron suggests there should be a “stereographer” – preferably a person with a great deal of experience in stereoscopic composition – to advise the director of the options available for creating a three dimensional environment on film. While Cameron sees the potential for stereoscopic filmmaking, he is also convinced
that it is a mistake to make a stereoscopic film that is dependent on this feature for its success in theatres. He asserts that the elements of story, cast and imagery among other factors must still characterize any given film.

Skeptics, such as renowned film critic Roger Ebert, argue that 3D disconnects the audience from a film because our brains interpret the space as artificial . This is a popular opinion held against stereoscopic technology – that the stereoscopic effect has been used to woo audiences with images that project meters from their perceived origin, often abruptly, which interrupts the continuity between audience and the story. This continuity may be further interrupted by the physical barrier of 3D glasses – a cumbersome aspect of the 3D technology that will not be disappearing from the theatres anytime soon.

While filmmakers such as Cameron seek to correct stereoscopic work in the theatre and show that it can be used to enhance the cinematic moment rather than destroy it, the question seems to remain as to whether or not stereoscopic tools will grow as an art . What creative solutions and processes will come when filmmakers begin to experiment with stereoscopic technology for purposes outside of cheap thrills?

To begin investigating these questions, here are two reviews of the new movie Coraline.

I was deprived of one added (and essential) dimension of Coraline when I saw it in 2D. I couldn’t say that I wasn’t warned : the theater put posters on all of the pillars near the box office stating that Coraline would be playing in 2D because the theater’s projectors could not support thetechnology. This wasn’t the only way that he theater cut corners to save a few dollars . I (willingly) paid $4 for a Dixie sized cup of blue raspberry Icee.

Throughout the film the right side of the screen had scratches that looked like runs in nylon stockings. I thought it wasn’t too much to ask of the theater to get a non-damaged copy of a film that they did not have the technology to project properly. But the scratches were only distracting in particular moments in the film when it should have turned 3D, but just ended up being shiny. I couldn’t help thinking what I was missing stuck in two dimensions of Coraline’s meticulously detailed set.

The Gadgetwise Blog at nytimes.com has had six posts concerning 3D technology in the last four months. The overwhelming idea that comes through in Eric A. Taub’s research is that although movies in 3D are getting a lot of attention right now, this trend is a mere flash in the pan. The real news is that 3D technology could soon be available closer to home. Much closer. Taub predicts that films in 3D are not going to be able to sustain a large audience, because eventually we’ll all have this technology in our living rooms.

The Neil-Gaiman-children’s-book-turned-movie, Coraline’s, subject matter seemed appropriate for 3D viewing; the film deals a lot with fear, as is to be expected from Tim Burton. But the “ooh” worthy 3D effects were few and far between. Watching an animated garden bloom around you is pretty neat, and seeing a sewing needle protrude out dangerously close to your eyes is unnerving, especially within the context of this movie. But it’s hard to say if these 3D perks made the experience significantly more enjoyable . Especially when going to see a film in 3D can cost up to half again as much as a normal movie ticket. I liked the film, and the 3D elements were fun , but much of that was due to novelty. I can’t imagine watching everything that way. Let alone watching Ice Age X I that way.

While keeping the 3D glasses is allowed , the “green” part of me whined until I threw them in the recycling receptacle outside the theater. How exactly they are recycled, I don’t know. But I don’t imagine there is a discounted price for bringing your own glasses anyway.