In a previous post I reviewed Cave of Forgotten Dreams. In doing so, I also presented some thoughts about 3D and its uses. My current thinking remains unaltered: 3D can be useful to produce quality materials and films. Its use, however, is being abused, and conversions, unnecessary or forced deployment (including in gadgets such as mobile phones and laptops) make it a controversial topic. Depending on personal experience or material considered, the impressions about the technology can be wildly different. I am not convinced that "3D is here to stay" in the sense that it transpires from the entertainment industry. In fact, 3D has always been with us, and recent (3D Blu-Ray players and 3D professional videocameras) and near technology (3D TV sets without glasses) advances will undoubtedly make 3D productions more regular, and a staple of what will be available. 3D is not suitable for all situations however, and the same is true for sound and colour. I found a nice picture outlining the past attempts with 3D in movie theatres. I do not think that it is completed (it misses the theatrically released Walt Disney short Working for Peanuts for 1953). It shows however a certain continuity in attempts with 3D, and several periods of intense adoption, years with multiple 3D films produced. I think that we are in the middle of another such period, but this time a trickle of 3D production will remain. I am not hostile at all with 3D, just saying that some technological advances are still needed, and there need to be also some broader understanding in what the technology can offer. Right now, a few selected 3D movies can convince you that 3D will stay (and indeed it will stay in my opinion). Looking at the quantity of products and productions however, and doing some scientific-type random sampling of them, would reveal that in many cases 3D does not improve at the experience. In most cases, however, as revealed in my review, all 3D productions are still uncertain and end up abusing the technology, using it for the sake of it.
In history (and archaeology), periodical cycles in production and consumption may be recognised. Even the metal ages (copper, bronze and iron) of European prehistory may be described as periodic cycles advancing the sophistication of cultures through the transmission and use of new technologies. Copper, bronze and iron are still used today, and while personal tools and weapons such as axes (and later swords) migrated from stone to iron, each time improving and not going back to the previous technology, broadening the range of tools considered, we can say that the long-lasting impact of new technologies was varied. For today's entertainment industry I think that a similar general model applies. It is unlikely that the action and adventure genres, which require enhanced sensorial pageantry to engage the public, will be able to ignore 3D. In other genres, however, and for other uses, 3D may make a much lower impact, and only appear occasionally. I certainly do not see me typing on a 3D laptop any time soon, or just refusing to watch 2D materials. There was a time when it was suggested that colouring movies was necessary to make older productions survive. This has proven wrong with time. 3D will follow a similar path.
It is curious to notice how technological advances can galvanise people, something sorely missed in archaeological records. The feelings of the moment are largely gone, and we do not know (or consider it as a curiosity) what people thought in antiquity (or just a few generations ago) about new technologies. In fact, for all excitement, new technologies are constantly appearing, and have done so for many thousand years, increasing in frequency towards contemporary times. People are constantly trying to find the next big thing in all sectors. Yet, the adoption of new technologies is always surprising and chaotic, as if we did not know what we discovered or introduced. This happens because a new technology must be tried, assessed, often modified or improved, and then accepted or rejected by the community (be it consumers, the general public, or a restricted community of users). Luckily no one is able (yet) to impose a technology upon society for whatever reason, and fully avoid the judgement of people. The entertainment industry in particular, has tried (and still does) to do things its way (as in selecting Blu-Ray over competing formats through contracts with movie producers or in adopting DRM for digital distribution). People should not be shy, and decide on their own when new technologies are introduced, and voice their opinion, freely. They should be unafraid of rejecting some technologies too, for as long as possible or necessary. New technologies are not always good for all things (as it may appear when they are introduced), and many novelties do fade away. In the end, the only truly wrong approach towards new technologies, as it emerges from archaeological research, is to blindly accept something new after a shallow assessment, or under perceived social pressure. New technologies must be pondered, and each one must decide what they are good for. Some may be gadgets aimed at social display of no practical use (even complex machines calculating the position of stars and planets similar to the Antikythera mechanism played that role for long in antiquity), others may prove essential improvements in some aspects (and not necessarily the ones initially suggested) or true practical novelties. The problem is when new technologies are accepted without having any real understanding of what to do with them in practice. Only then the fantastic hopes placed on the new technologies will burst in flames when reality will prove the mistakes made.