Is 3D cinema doomed?

A recent study has predicted that box office takings for 3D movies will drop in 2013, despite a calendar chock-full of multi-dimensional big hitters.

The report, by credit agency Fitch Ratings, projects a decline at the 3D box office, for the first time since the technology resurfaced with James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ in 2009.

Comparing the findings to 2012, the report’s authors singled out the cause of the apparently impending drop: "[Previous ] attendance likely benefited from the initial proliferation of 3D films," read the study. "However, the initial excitement has dwindled, and consumers are focused again on the overall quality of the film and are weighing the cost of a premium ticket versus a base 2D ticket."

To simplify that: we’ve had enough of paying for a gimmick.

The report continues: "Going to the movies remains one of the lower-cost forms of entertainment. However, increased pricing, particularly on 3D films, may erode this perception over time."

There are some impressive tent poles coming our way in 2013 - ‘Iron Man 3’, ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’, ‘Man Of Steel’ - all hitting the screen sporting 3D specs. But, with ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ and ‘Avengers Assemble’ under its belt, 2012 is a tough £22.7 billion grossing act to follow.

Is this really the year that 3D fails?

[Related story: Iron Man to be shown in 4D in Japan]
[Related story: Avatar 2 to pioneer 'underwater performance capture']

The Avatar effect
Let’s go back to the start. When ‘Avatar’ broke the box office in 2009, it gave us 3D like we’d never imagined. Rather than awkward pop-out moments, James Cameron’s Pocahontas-in-space epic had real and layered depth. It was like looking out of a window, rather than straight at a screen. In an attempt to steal a little of ‘Avatar’s’ spotlight, a raft of Hollywood films immediately had 3D awkwardly “retro-fitted” in post production (think ‘Clash Of The Titans’), and every other upcoming release had “in 3D” glued to the end of its title. Hollywood went 3D fanatical, without ever questioning if it was needed - and now, nearly four years later, the magic may have finally worn out.

Unforgivable flops
Want proof of 3D’s waning wonder? Two of 2012’s most costly flops, ‘John Carter’ and ‘Dredd’, flaunted their 3D credentials, but ended up tarnishing the technology’s name. The digital damning was then further helped by a stream of shameless B-movie offerings such as ‘Piranha 3DD’. We actually feel slightly bad about ‘Dredd’, but ‘John Carter’ summed up the issue in a $200 million nutshell – too much spectacle, not enough script. And then there’s Warner Bros’ recent announcement that 3D fairytale rework, ‘Jack The Giant Slayer’, is expected to lose the studio a massive £93 million. It seems 3D is getting itself a difficult reputation.

Risky business
It’s not just the studios that suffer though. At an average of £12 a ticket, plus a surplus charge for the glasses in the first place (who actually keeps 3D specs on them?), going to the cinema can sometimes be a genuinely risky investment. You’ve got to KNOW the movie is worth seeing, before actually shelling out for that seat. So whilst there really is nothing like the big screen experience, if you accidentally witness a turkey, it’s impossible not to feel undersold in several dimensions. It’s a frustrating trend that shows no sign of slowing.

The gimmick question
For cinephiles everywhere, 3D has become an almost moral question: does it actually make a movie better? The technology is still far too new to be considered “worthy”, whilst for some of us the whole 3D experience is distracting, sometimes even uncomfortable. One study, by California State University, even claimed that watching a movie in 3D actually tripled your risk of a headache at the cinema. And then there’s the hipster-esque specs themselves. They’re just a bit silly.

The future of 3D
What if we’re missing something here though? 3D might be set up for a fall, but there could be a surprisingly simple explanation.  If you look at this year’s slowly advancing slate, there’s only really a select few films that are still getting the treatment: the big budget sci-fis and spectacular superheroes - the Star Treks and the men of steel. These are the movies that actually deserve the experience, and justify the investment from both you, and the studio. So, whilst this limiting might mean fewer 3D offerings at the box office in general, it also makes for more efficient use of the technology where it remains. Maybe 3D isn’t really in decline at all… it’s just becoming more refined.

Has 3D had its day? Tell us what you think in the comments below.