“Jurassic Park” is the latest movie to fall victim to a gimmick Hollywood has been abusing lately — 3D.

The movie came back to theaters April 5 and is another excellent example of a pointless attempt to popularize the 3D experience. Overall, it is gimmicky because it does nothing to enhance the film and is pointless to the film watching experience.

Advertisement

“Jurassic Park” is a great movie and a Steven Spielberg classic. Watching the movie through 3D glasses doesn’t change my opinion of it. The movie still is some of the most fun I’ve had watching an adventure unfold on screen.

Seeing the movie used to sell the 3D experience is disheartening, though. While it makes sense why Hollywood would use it to attract audiences to see the movie again on the big screen, the movie doesn’t deserve to be a part of some 3D propaganda.

Today, many movies are available in 3D, including upcoming releases “Iron Man 3,” “The Great Gatsby” and “The Wolverine.”

The 3D experience doesn’t make a visually stunning movie like “Jurassic Park” any better, especially when the films already are played through digital projectors that increase the basic picture quality.

There are movies that can be fun to experience in 3D, such as James Cameron’s “Avatar” and Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo,” but these movies still express the director’s visual intent perfectly without the glasses. Not to mention the films also offer more than special effects and visual quality. They also have good story arcs. There is more that goes into a good movie than special effects.

So, what is the point of the 3D experience right now?

It is nothing outside of a marketing plea by Hollywood to draw audiences to visually attractive movies. Instead of adding something to the movie experience it actually changes the way viewers watch a film.

Advertisement*

Three-D presents a distraction to the big screen experience — luring audiences to stay focused on the 3D effects and less focused on all other aspects that go into making a movie.

Not only does 3D provide little film enhancement, but it also can’t revive bad movies that have terrible acting and convoluted plot points. “Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace” is evidence of this (sorry, “Star Wars” fans). The movie re-released on the big screen last year and still sucked as it did before—only this time Darth Maul’s double sided lightsaber could be seen sticking out in the viewers face. It’s neat, but it doesn’t really enhance the film, thus making it a gimmick.

The technology is impressive, but there hasn’t been a movie to come out recently that creatively uses the technology to be an essential part of a movie experience. “Avatar” and “Hugo” come close, but the 3D experiences in those movies feel more like experiments than innovation. The technology has been available to audiences for quite some time now and I’m convinced viewers have seen the peak of it.