Curtains for 3D, Comic-Con?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Talk about mixed signals.

First the New York Times runs a story about how the studios are losing faith in 3D as a money-maker. Which is good news -- it's never too soon to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous fad.

Then The Wrap runs a story about how upcoming 3D movies by Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson and Michael Bay could save the gimmick.

(I know what you're thinking. It feels wrong and even a little heretical to mention Bay's name in the same sentence with the other three.)

Personally, I think it's a fool's wager to bet on the survival of 3D based on films by the aforementioned directors. Put it this way: Bay's third Transformers film, which is in 3D, would do huge business no matter what the format -- even if it were only available to be seen on iPhone screens. Not because it will be good -- I can guarantee that it won't be, based on the craptastic filmography that is Bay's career (especially the Transformers films).

No, it will do huge business because there's a mass audience of people who are suckers for his outlandish and nonsensical action films. That doesn't mean they're good; it just means they sell. So do hamburgers at McDonald's -- and they have about the same amount of nutritional value as Bay's films.

As for Jackson's two-part Hobbit film, again, there's a built-in audience that would flock to it whether it was in 3D or black-and-white. Spielberg's (The Adventures of Tintin) and Scorsese's (Hugo Cabret) 3D entries are both essentially children's stories; Spielberg's is computer-animated. Again, that means they come with a built-in audience that has little to do with the directors' brand or with 3D.

The bottom line is that 3D is a hype, a gimmick, a phony. And while there may be the occasional breakout hit in 3D, it won't be because the movie was in 3D. Audiences are getting weary of paying a premium for so-so movies, just because they require a set of goggles.

Meanwhile, the Times also reported that the major studios suddenly have grown leery of what has become known as the Comic-Con effect.

Click here: This commentary continues on my website.

Go To Homepage

Popular in the Community