In the final days of 2009, an event occurred that would cause movies to be ruined for months to come. What was it? “Avatar” was released into theaters. The film amazed millions of people as blue cat/human hybrids jumped around in trees in an obvious metaphor. Soon after, it became the highest grossing film in history.

Many people decided a single showing of the special effects demonstration wasn’t enough for them, but the reason for its success was something that everyone seemed to agree on: it played in 3D.

In 2008, three 3D movies were released. In 2009, 11 came out. In 2010 there were a total of 24 movies released in 3D. Why the increase? The answer is rather simple: money. A ticket for a film played in IMAX 3D can cost double (at times up to $19) the price of a standard 2D showing (often $7-$10).

Some of you might say, “Hey, I like 3D! I don’t mind paying extra money for it.” But you aren’t considering the fact that anything, when only done for an extra buck, isn’t done very well. This has been the case with 3D.

One of the first films to feel the effect of “Avatar” was “Clash of the Titans.” Already “Clash” was a bad film, but in February, after everyone went to see the blue cat people fight humans, Warner Brothers decided to make “Clash” even worse, and gave a 3D conversion team two months (which is far too short to turn out anything good) to make “Clash” into a 3D release. When it appeared in theaters in April, I saw that not only was it just a bad movie, but the 3D took it a step lower, making it hard for me to even know what was happening onscreen.

The problem is the 3D glasses in theaters today are practically sunglasses. I’ve even seen students walking around campus wearing them. However since the lenses are so dark, everything you watch in theaters gets really difficult to see. It’s like wearing sunglasses in the dark, everything becomes dimmed.

Usually, if there’s time, the team that converts the film to 3D will also brighten it. However, they failed to do this in “Clash,” so half the time, most prominently during action scenes, I had no idea what was going on. This, so I hear, has been a problem in many films since (“Step Up 3D,” “Saw 3D,” “Piranha 3D”). 3D is actually making the films worse. Even the titles are diminished by having “3D” tacked on the end.

As long as we’re wearing glasses, 3D shouldn’t even be implemented. Until there’s a way to watch 3D films without glasses (which director of Avatar and 3D pioneer James Cameron is actually developing), nothing should be in 3D.

Yet, here we are with, yes, 3D TVs. Just a terrible idea. All they’re good for is 5 minutes of entertainment in Best Buy. You need glasses for every single person who’s going to watch, so get rid of that idea of a Harry Potter marathon with all your friends before going to see the last movie, since it’s too expensive for everyone to watch (glasses average around $100 a pair).

Even more ridiculous than the useless 3D televisions are designer 3D glasses. That’s right. For the low price of $180, you can get a pair of glasses designed by the one and only Calvin Klein. Yes, the guy whose name is on your underwear has designed 3D glasses that look like…well, designer sunglasses. Don’t simply be an idiot for going to a movie with awful 3D, look like one too! But hey, $180 is a pretty good price if you already see a lot of 3D movies. That way, you won’t have the burden of taking free glasses already in the theater. You can even get 3D glasses made exclusively for “Tron: Legacy” for $150.

The nice thing to know is that this current 3D trend won’t last. Sure, movie sites like Internet Movie Database (IMDB) and slashfilm.com are reporting that there are 33 new 3D movies planned for 2011 (with more to be post-converted in the future, I’m sure) but audiences are finally going to catch on. There aren’t even enough 3D theaters around right now to play all these films, so eventually this rush to 3D will collapse.

That is, until “Avatar 2” hits theaters in 2014. In retrospect, if you adjust its gross for how much money is worth now, “Gone with the Wind” made far more than “Avatar.” And it was breathtaking and revolutionary…in 2D.

Written by Wesley Emblidge. This article originally appeared in January 2010 issue.