Geek Girl Report: 3D Movies, Triple The Dimensions for Triple The Price?

Remember back in the 50s, when you would pay a little extra to don those goofy-looking blue and red glasses and watch a film where stuff looked like it was flying right out at you? Well, it's back in theaters, only this time you're paying twice as much to don goofy-looking black glasses to see stuff fly at you. Sure, it's a cool effect, but is it really worth the price?

Personally, I don't think so.

I've seen a number of 3D movies, both in the theater and at home. And admittedly, I thought it was pretty cool at first, especially when it appeared that lasers, or ninja stars or whatever were flying right out of the screen at you. But here's the thing: the 3D effect is only really noticeable for about 5 or 10% of the film. The rest of the time, it just looks like a regular film with odd, diorama-esque layers in the background.

3D may have been billed as this huge innovation when it first came out.  (anyone remember the huge buzz over "Avatar?") But nowadays, it seems like another gimmick to bolster the sales of an otherwise poor movie.

Take the new movie "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," for example. The movie was set to release last June, but just a month before the original release, Paramount announced they would delay the film until 2013 and convert the whole thing to 3D. After the last G.I. Joe movie bombed, it seemed the studio desperately wanted to make this one a money-maker. And it seems to have worked, at least for the film's opening weekend.

Well, sorry "Joes," but if your movie has a paper-thin plot, forgettable characters, and explosions making up about 60% of the whole show, putting it all in 3D may boost your sales, but it's not going to make it a better movie.

I just don't see the point of spending twice or almost three times the price of admission just to see a handful of scenes where the 3D effect is actually kind of noticeable. If I really wanted to blow my money at the movies, I can always get the jumbo-sized tub of popcorn.