Maybe dumb is the wrong word. "Insulting" works. "Unnecessary" fits pretty well.
I understand that movies are trying to keep up with television in the numbers, but I think it's wrong to use a gimmick like 3-D to bring the numbers up when they could just write better stories and not go straight to the cheap and easy solution.
It could also be a problem of inflation. There are more and more movies being made, and to insure they aren't all the same, tactics must be shifted. Shifted is the wrong word, but I don't have time to find the right word.
I would like to get Sun Tzu's teaching's into the world of film production. The Art of War and Film has a nice ring to it.
It is said that it's a miracle any movie gets made. Considering how many movies come out each year, that statement seems suspect to hyperbole and outright lies. Perhaps if you're in a position of little to no power it's tough to get a movie made, but if you're a jack-ass with no idea what the public wants or needs and just want to see your paycheck get bigger.
I'm sure that last statement carries a lot of weight since SO many film executives read my blog. (That was sarcasm kids. Also, if you're an actual kid, please stop reading this, I say dirty words. Like "poop" and "potty" and "fucknards")
Back to the topic at hand. 3-D movies seem like a terrible idea because you need glasses to watch them, they cost more to make and watch, and there are many, many people who can't even get the 3-D to work (pirates, and people with legitimate eye problems). Even when they make a movie with 3-D in mind, how am I supposed to enjoy it at home? I don't have the funds to buy a 3-D television that only 2 people can watch at a time. Ridiculous.
Anyway, Those are my thoughts on 3-D movies.