In terms of ways to spend huge amounts of money on something just to make it worse, 3D versions of films are up there with hiring Tulisa and Nicole Slazenger for X Factor and birthday presents from divorcee dads.
J.J. Abrams agrees (with some of the metaphor), and unusually, was not only more than happy to mention his thoughts to SFX, but he did it while trying to promote the new Star Trek. Which is in 3D.
"The studio said, 'You have to make it in 3D if you're going to make it, for economic reasons'. But my feeling was I didn't like 3D. So the idea of doing Star Trek in 3D was ridiculous. But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn't assume we just loved 3D."
"I have trouble with 3D sometimes. I can't see it right; I get a headache; it annoys me; I hate the glasses; I hate the fact that things get so dim. I approached it very cynically. And the fact is that we've been using techniques that haven't been used before in 3D. They've figured out things. They've made enough movies now with this new process that they can understand ways to eliminate some of these problems."
Some of these problems. So he's basically saying it's still sh*t.
"Things like breaking shots into zones, 3D zones, using multiple virtual cameras. A lot of this has made me a believer, whereas before I was really against it… There's this myth that if you don't shoot the movie in 3D it doesn't look good. Actually, the opposite can be true."
"The key for me is I got to make my 2D movie that I wanted to make, just the way I wanted to; and it gets to be augmented in 3D but that doesn't detract from the 2D,"
If only other directors would be so brave.