Do you love 3-D movies?
A bonanza of 3-D flicks is headed your way in 2010, including "Shrek Forever After," "Toy Story 3," "Despicable Me," "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" and "Tron Legacy."
If you don't, Hollywood's 3-D mania will seem like an artful grab for your attentions -- and your money.
Hollywood's recent 3-D onslaught is no big surprise. Just call it the ripple effect of James Cameron's behemoth hit, "Avatar."
That eye-popping adventure did not score Cameron a Best Picture or Best Director Oscar. But the 55-year-old director from Kapuskasing, Ontario is crying all the way to the bank.
According to boxofficemojo.com, as of April 7, 2010 "Avatar" has earned $2,700,155,459 worldwide. That's billions people, not chump-change millions.
For that feat alone "Avatar" is changing the way Hollywood's movie game is being played. To some that is no surprise.
In the Time Magazine article "3-D or Not 3-D: That is the Question," written by Richard Corliss in 2009, directors like Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were mentioned to be pro 3-D in a big way.
Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, said that 3-D is "as important a change…as sound (which revolutionized movies within three years in the 1920s) and colour (introduced around the same time, and ubiquitous from the mid-'60s)."
The 3-D fad is certainly nothing new to Hollywood.
Experiments with depth stimulation go back to the earliest years of the film industry, starting with British inventor William Friese-Greene. This visionary secured a patent for a 3-D movie process at the end of the 19th century.
Many 3-D shorts were shown in theatres from the 1920s into the 1940s. The 3-D craze of the 1950s followed, where low-budget, gimmicky flicks like "Bwana Devil" (1952) and "House of Wax" (1953) hit home runs.
In 1969 3-D made a comeback with the soft-core sex comedy "The Stewardesses." Made for just US$100,000, this cheesy romp grossed more than US$27 million.
Now the 3-D circus comes to town again, boasting better technology, bigger spectacles and more black glasses to "enhance" our experience.
But moviegoers who have not yet bought into 3-D fever are asking two questions:
Does today's new-and-improved 3-D really dazzle us? Or does it dumb down the game, making special effects a spectacular cover-up for bad scripts and tepid acting?
In the case of films like "Avatar" and "How to Train Your Dragon," one of 2010's recent 3-D entries, this thrilling new marriage of technology and film artistry is outstanding.
Then there are flicks like Louis Leterrier's "Clash of the Titans."
Shot in 2-D, Warner Bros. made a last-minute decision to convert the finished film to 3-D. The quickie face-lift resulted in what annoyed bloggers called "fake 3-D." It also gave the film a milky quality instead of sharp, clear contrasts.
Some 3-D experts called these "short-cut" results sacrilege. Millions of other moviegoers, however, did not even notice.
To ordinary folk like these, their biggest worry is that good, strong, moving 2-D stories will be passed over by studios from now on.
Sure, 3-D is fun when it is done right. But can it work with an intimate drama like "Precious" or a nutty comedy like "Date Night."
Hollywood will surely try to convince us. Will moviegoers be ready to embrace that 3-D closeup when it comes?