James Cameron is working to bring his film Titanic back to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the titular boat's fateful trip.  The film will not only be back in theaters, but it will also be 3D, with a giant capital "D", standing for "Disaster".  

With a slight improvement in ticket sales, figures showed a jump from 27.8 billion to a 29.9 billion dollar improvement from the previous year.  3D has been named Hollywood's savior.  Now the expectation is that most films will have some type of 3D component.  Realistically, though, do we need films re-released in 3D? 

Once the flood gate is opened again by Cameron the trend-setter, what's to stop Hollywood from 3D-izing every top grossing film ever made?  Efforts will be divided as directors race back to the drawing board to conceptualize a 3D version of their previous hit films.  Newer projects will ultimately suffer, as they take the backseat to an older project, that frankly doesn't require a re-release. 

With new films and old films hitting theaters in 3D, it'll force directors in certain genres (sci-fi, fantasy, action...) to produce the next big 3D hit.  And honestly, if the main focus of filmmaking becomes strategizing ways in which a scene can pop with three dimensional realism, all other aspects of filmmaking are likely to suffer (i.e. the lackluster story in Avatar). 

The writing is on the wall.  3D is a trend that will carry Hollywood, for a while.  Will that keep me out of the theaters?  No.  It will, however, make me a bit choosier about the films I attend.