3-D: Gimmick or artistic breakthrough?

by Carrie Rickey

Published Jan. 31, 2009, 3:12 p.m. ET

From Hollywood Boulevard to Madison Avenue, Wall Street to Main Street, the question du jour is "To 3-D or not 3-D?"

And from James Cameron to John Lassiter, the biggest names in movies are making them in the new 3-D process, better aligned and synchronized than the cumbersome 1950s gimmick that brought us 'Bwana Devil' and 'House of Wax.'

I myself am a 3-D skeptic. There have been moments in 'Bolt' and 'Journey to the Center of the Earth' that I thought 'oooh, cool,' but the illusion of depth was not sustained through the whole films. When I reported

» READ MORE: this piece,

I was surprised at the enthusiasm from a lot of people I respect.

You can test-drive the new 3-D by picking up a pair of polarized lenses free from CVS, K-Mart or Target and watching the 'Monsters vs. Aliens' ads during the second quarter of the Super Bowl.

Your thoughts on the new, improved 3-D? Gimmick or artistic breakthrough? Were you sold by those Super Bowl spots? Are you willing to pay a premium of $3 on top of the price of a movie ticket to see a movie in 3-D?