According to the omni-knowing Wikipedia, “A 3-D (three-dimensional) film is a motion picture that enhances the illusion of depth perception”. The bigger question facing film-makers and the film industry is, “does it enhance the actual film or viewing experience?” It is being debated whether there are actually any worthy 3D movies out there… Has Hollywood got carried away with a gimmick?To 3DOne positive point put forward by Richard Gelfond of IMAX Corp., is that “visionaries like Tim Burton, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis all have 3D projects under way. With that talent at the helm, it is certain to reset the benchmark for 3D film experiences“. You could even say that Cameron help push the technology forward in it’s current wave with his own-specification Reality Camera system, developed in 2003 in order to film ‘Ghosts of the Abyss’.With these creative minds realizing that the filming process should be use to enhance the storytelling, and not simply slapped on to try and pick up a current trend, there is promise for the quality of 3D films being made. In that regard, we are seeing some smart uses of 3D, also including a number of documentaries and nature adventures where 3D does add to the effect of some staggering scenes.Do moviegoers want 3D movies? The figures would suggest so: back when ‘The Polar Express’ was released as IMAX’s first full-length, animated 3-D feature, the 3-D version earned about 14 times as much per screen as the 2D version. This was a few years ago, and certainly encouraged a number of directors to experiment further with the medium; fast forward to last year and we saw some pretty epic releases in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘How to Train Your Dragon’. Figures may be dipping in 2011, in regards to the percentage of box office total that is received through the 3D version of the film, but that small dip is only after several years of decent increase, and partly due to the wider selection of 3D movies around.Not To 3DNot every movie works in 3D. Hollywood is treading a thin line this time around, and needs to avoid the similar recent record industry fad that ‘every song needs an auto-tuned T-Pain vocal’, which became so ridiculous it lost all credibility, and crashed and burned in a short time frame. Converting old classics to 3D just for the sake of it has hurt the reputation pretty badly of late (’Jaws 3D’, anyone?). Rather refreshingly, Tim Burton isn’t shooting ‘Dark Shadows’ in 3D, which is a great thing to hear. It can be argued that such movies need a crisp, darker tone to them, and there would be little artistic advantage to use it in those cases.The medium has been getting a lot of stick this year, from the quip of “Is there a way for Woody Allen to be neurotic in an added dimension?“, to the sudden decline of favor from Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Has Hollywood already overcooked it?2.5D?Ultimately, I think, and hope, there should be an equal balance of 3D and non-3D movies, and a distinction that you can like or dislike any of them for reasons other than the format. Studios don’t have to make everything in that medium, and reviewers don’t have to absolutely and automatically detest anything made in it. It is about using the technology as another tool in a wide arsenal, similar to the way that talented directors may use CGI and digital conversion on some projects. Using it to add to the overall cinematic experience is a way that the technology can survive and remain special for the movie-goer, rather than an all-out assault from the big studios and ultimate audience over-saturation.