The New York Times ran a piece about how, for some people, viewing 3D movies can induce headaches and sickness. (They ignore the well-established fact that the same is true for many 2D films, although for different reasons, Ishtar). As far as we are aware, it is not yet compulsory to attend a screening of Avatar in 3D. And it is available in 2D formats, for those who prefer not to wear "dumb glasses."
Given the success and the record-breaking profits (there's a ticket surcharge for 3D screenings) generated by Avatar, the lesson Hollywood seems to be taking away from all this is, "let's imitate success." Did I mention the record-breaking profits?
Clearly, more 3D films will be coming at ya! this year (and beyond) whether you can view them clearly or not.
As an example, Sony pictures has announced that the next film in the highly successful "Spider-Man" franchise will be released on July 3, 2012 in 3D, directed by Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer). Minor details like a cast and a finished shooting script to come. Did I mention the record-breaking profits of Avatar in 3D?
We trust that everyone who experiences discomfort while viewing 3D movies will make the common-sense choice to avoid them and view them in 2D. Or go read a book. . . about 3D. We could recommend a few. Trying to force a format on an audience is simply bad business. Anyone here remember "Smell-o-Rama"?
On the other hand, the record-breaking profits (have I mentioned them?) would seem to indicate that the people adversely affected by 3D films like Avatar are in the minority.
There's also the idea that not every film would benefit from a 3D presentation. Die Hard 5? Yes. A re-make of Merchant-Ivory's The Remains of the Day? Not so much.