The battle rages on over 3-D. There are proponents and critics, and recently Michael Bay told a crowd at ShoWest that 3-D was a gimmick and nothing more. The real answer, as it is with everthing in this industry, is its ability to make a dollar, preferably many dollars.
And while 3-D did not distinguish itself for a good long while, the arrival of Monsters vs. Aliens has again raised the question of how profitable it can be. Variety has a great new article about where 3-D is now and where it's going. In the report is an estimate on how much more a 3-D production costs to be 3-D ($10 - $14 million), and the next step in the process seems to be upconverting older films to 3-D.
Disney has done it with Nightmare Before Christmas, but the list of movies that have at least tested the "dimensionalization" process includes Titanic and the first Star Wars trilogy. But if Titanic comes back to theaters, could it earn $20 million to make the exercise worthwhile? I think the Star Wars trilogy could probably cash in, making at least $60 million between the three films, but George Lucas won't move forward until there are more 3-D screens, which is a tug of war unto itself.
