I have a new metaphor to describe the studio-driven push for 3D stereo films.
I've said, and many agree, that 3D is not part of the natural evolution of cinema, like sound and color were. 3D is a paintbrush in an artist's toolbox to help tell a story - and not all filmmakers require this tool to tell their stories.
3D stereo is like Cinemascope in the '50s. Widescreen film was introduced as a cinema-only alternative to television. The beautiful wide canvas was born as a new tool for storytellers, but not every film requires it. And some films are simply wrong for it.
Today, six decades after widescreen was introduced, some filmmakers are still using it. But it's not appropriate for all films.
So, what's the difference between 3D and widescreen? Studios can charge more for 3D, while widescreen movie ticket prices were never surcharged a premium. That's why it's being shoved down our throats by studio executives and producers.