3D Thinking

Besides the technical complaints against 3D, such as whether filming is done in 3D or converted in post production, I think there is one major reason why some people don't enjoy 3D movies.  They say it is a marketing gimmick or fad and yet there are those who see the merit and quality of 3D.  The reason why some people do not appreciate 3D technology is that they think in 2D.  It is a reflex for them to think in 2D, so it should be possible over time to have them gain an appreciation for 3D.

I'm not for or against 3D, I like a good movie in 3D but don't like movies made for the sake of using 3D technology.  When you think about it, it starts to make sense.  Ask people to draw a box and many will draw a square, and often the opposite occurs (people referring to a square as a box).  Recently, I was offered a dessert.  They asked me, "would you like a square?"  These squares were different, some crumbled pastry and some fudge.  But they were not square, they were cubes.  In the same way that Rice Krispie squares are rectangular prisms.  It seems as though our minds have been conditioned to react in 2D.  Some might argue that Rice Krispie cubes don't have "the ring" to it.  But say these were initial branded cubes instead of squares way back in the 1920s at their inception.  After 90 years of calling them cubes, squares would sound out of the ordinary.  I've seen other examples pointed out to people (even myself sometimes), where an object is called a shape but wasn't that shape.  Similar to how many people call tissues Kleenex, thinking in two dimensions has been normal for so long, after a while we don't realize the error in what we say (or think).  The only question left is if the harsh critics of the 3D boom can think in 3D.  Obviously this is difficult to test and James Cameron is the only true 3D thinker who could perform such a study.