There are days when I wonder why I still follow the movies that come out of Hollywood. Is it the promise of experiencing something magical that no other art form can provide? Is it experiencing moments of cinematic genius where image, sound, performance and the written word come together in a bastion of thrilling excitement? Perhaps both of these and more reasons are relevant, but as you look closer at Hollywood and its products over the past few years, and moving in to the future, a person such as myself is in despair. Yes, Hollywood has always made product. But they have also made great films. Now, the trend is only toward product with the odd great film slipping through the production net. And now they are trending to the ultimate slap in the face for the audience, the 3D conversion of classic films. Why bother spending lots of money remaking an old film when you can just take the old film, convert it to 3D at a cheaper cost and sell tickets for it at a higher price? It’s an accountant’s dream, but a cinema-lover’s nightmare. It’s Hollywood accounting gone mad and it’s coming at the expense of quality films.

The most recent high profile 3D conversion of an older film released last year was the Disney classic “The Lion King”. Now, it’s a great animated film but what is the point of spending over twenty dollars on a ticket for the privilege of watching this film in 3D when I can watch it on DVD as many times as I like on my fifty inch television screen at home with much better sound and without putting on those silly glasses?

More pointless excursions are being offered in 2012, with three high profile examples being the 3D re-releases of “Titanic”, “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” and Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast”. You can argue about the merits of each of these films separately. The relevant question to this discussion is the same as with “The Lion King”; why spend money again on these films? What is the 3D experience bringing to the table that justifies the additional expense? I would argue none. It’s all about the script and the execution. An extra dimension doesn’t affect this. And if it’s an old film, you’ve already seen it! A film is not a burger or a can of Coke which can be sold again and again.

A custom-made 3D film like “Avatar” is obviously going to be a great experience, particularly in the hands of a master filmmaker like James Cameron, and when its on its initial run in the cinemas. However, a film we have already seen, that wasn’t made for 3D in the first instance, and is then recycled for further profit, is a travesty and an insult to the viewing public’s intelligence. These films were made with two dimensions in mind, not three; so no matter how good the conversion, the experience just won’t cut it at this fundamental level. And maybe George Lucas can keeping re-releasing Star Wars films every decade and make a gazillion dollars out of it, but enough is enough already. This classic franchise has the stench of “sell-out” written all over it.

Hollywood has always produced product; that is to say, films of no particular quality but are solid earners. Nothing wrong with that. Hollywood has also always produced remakes for the simple reason that the content has already succeeded in the market place before, thus making the investment more secure. Not my cup of tea, but sometimes it works, and again, it can be a good revenue stream. But recycling an old film in 3D? Is Hollywood steeping to a new low here? But the more frightening question is, will the audience pay money to see these converted films and thus encourage Hollywood to go further down this road? Let’s hope not!

I’m not asking for the world here, but would it hurt Hollywood to put some investment in to original films? Think of it as research and development in to finding new franchises or genres that work with the audience. Think of it as finding new markets and opportunities to maximise revenues in unexpected places. Normal businesses do this to adapt to new markets. In a business whose success relies on producing successful art and entertainment, it is imperative that studio executives find ways to keep innovating, lest they see their business slip away in to obsolescence. Perhaps this is the crux of the problem, and where art and business collide; the former has no regard for profit, while the latter has no regard for art. Yet film needs to find the balance between both in order for any film to succeed.

James Cameron may be a visionary filmmaker, but his proclamations that 3D will become the new medium may be misguided. But then, if he made every 3D film, maybe it would become the new medium because he knows how to do it. I would argue however that as long as you make a film well, you don’t need the third dimension. People were stunned by “Avatar” and its 3D images, but this overshadows the fact that at the fundamental level, the film was well told and executed, regardless of those images. If “Avatar” had a bad script, I can guarantee you people would not have been queuing up to see it.

As much as Hollywood hates to admit it, the 3D experience is specialised to certain types of films and cannot be “ported” to every film for the sake of securing a higher ticket price. By doing this, Hollywood is forgetting the golden rule of business, “take care of the customer first, and the rest will sort itself out”. In this case, taking care of the customer means giving them films that are worth the admission price. Fancy gimmicks like 3D are seen through instantly; this is no more indicated than at cinemas where 3D films are now being offered in 2D to those cinephiles who are now rejecting 3D because they were burnt by so many bad 3D film experiences. Why not just drop 3D altogether?

Hollywood, give us quality entertainment rather than gimmicks. Trust me, you will be financially rewarded for your trouble!