It’s no secret that I loath 3D in movies. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed “Avatar” for what it was, but that was 1 single film out of about 12 I’ve watched recently. It always goes the same way for me… about 5 minutes into a 3D film I find myself wishing I could just take the stupid glasses off and watch what I went there to watch… the movie.

No matter what anyone tries to tell you, 3D does NOT ADD anything beyond a visual gimmick to a movie. Some idiot directors have tried to claim 3D adds “emotional depth” to their films. BULLSHIT. Just flat out BULLSHIT. Look, I’m certainly not the biggest movie expert in the world, but I think it’s at least fair to say I know something about movies and I watch my fair share of them and I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that not once has 3D in a film ever added “emotional depth”. It is what it is… a visual gimmick.

And listen, “gimmicks” are not necessarily bad things. As a matter of fact gimmicks can be good things when used in moderation, at the right times and in the right places and 3D is no exception to that.

But let me get to the point of this post. I got an email today from the group over at the “3d Entertainment Summit” and head ass clown Bob Dowling (to be fair, I don’t actually know Bob Dowling and for all I know he’s probably a great and wonderful guy… but this email pissed me off so much, today he is “head ass clown”) that just insulted anyone with half a gram of common sense.

In his message today, Dowling took aim at people (like myself) who don’t like 3D in most movies and who point out its obvious shortcomings. This is what he said:

“There continues to be a baffling number of stories proclaiming 3D is a fad or a gimmick that carries with it unforeseen (and doubtless, dire) shortcomings.

Say What?

Most of these pieces, emanating from a variety of media are, for the most part, written by folks who, if not active members of the flat earth society, are fellow travelers.”

Do not ever bet against technology. And 3D is a technology, pure and simple.”

To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd: Bob you ignorant slut.

First of all I hate it when simpletons like this guy try to make it sound like their opponents are saying something they’re not. For example, Bob would like you to believe that people like me who dislike 3D in MOST movies dislike 3D because it’s some kind of scary new technology. That anyone who dislikes 3D is just a “member of the flat earth society”.

Secondly, Bob tries to make this a debate about technology, when clearly it is not. This is a debate about style and art, but he’s too clueless to get that.

Technology is good. I love tech. I’m a happy RSS subscriber and daily reader of Engadget, Gizmodo, Mashable and Lifehacker. I love new technologies THAT ARE USEFUL AND USED IN USEFUL WAYS. Take digital projection in movie theatres. Yes, the technology had its detractors, but I’ve always loved it because to me, the technology actually ADDS to the movie experience. Brilliant images, richer colors. It was (and continues to be) a great example of a wonderful technology being used in an appropriate way.

Lets be clear here. 3D is a WONDERFUL technology that should be pursued, should be developed, should be advanced… but just because all of that is true does not mean it’s necessarily a useful or appropriate for 99% of movies today.

Lasers are a very cool technology, They can do amazing things and I love them. But just because lasers are a great technology doesn’t mean I want some idiot teenager brining his laser pointer into a movie theatre where I’m watching “The Avengers” and projecting it onto the screen while the movie is going on. I’m sure if Bob Dowling was there when I complained he’d say I was just afraid of technology.

Stimulus seats (you know those seats in some theatres that will vibrate or shake a little when something is going on in a movie) are terrific pieces of technology… but when watching a movie they’re annoying as hell and just distract you from the movie watching experience (I did it once and vowed I would never do it again).

3D is a great technology and absolutely has some wonderful potential applications. 3D video games are a terrific idea for example. But when watching a movie Bab, this isn’t a matter of “technology, pure and simple”.

It is discouraging to me seeing Hollywood studios jumping like excited monkeys at the San DIego zoo over ONE (yes… ONE) movie (Avatar) getting it semi-right and making a lot of money.

3D dulls the colors of a movie, it makes me wear irritating glasses, it adds nothing to 99% of the movies it’s used in, it doesn’t make a bad story good, it doesn’t make a bad joke funny, it doesn’t make a lame car chase any more exciting, it doesn’t make a dramatic moment any more intense and it doesn’t make a love story any more emotional. It’s just distracting and irritating. That’s not an issue of technology Bob… that’s an issue of art and the proper (or improper) applications of said technologies.

There are going to be some movies where 3D is a great idea. For example… “Jack Ass 3D” is coming soon, and I honestly think that is a great kind of movie to try 3D with. Why not?

But I’m sorry Bob, 3D in most of the movies it’s used for ends up being a distraction, it kills the image on the screen, it’s irritating to wear those stupid glasses and it adds next to nothing to the film going experience for me. So you see you pompous ass clown… this isn’t about me being scared of technology, this isn’t about “technology, pure and simple”, this is about art, presentation, style and the application of technology. But I guess you’re just too dull to get that aren’t you?

Some people love 3D in movies, and that’s totally fair, nothing wrong with that… but don’t be a giant dick and tell me if I don’t it’s just because I’m scared of technology because that’s not what this discussion is about.