With the release of Avatar at the end of the year, the film touted 3D visuals as the next “big thing” for moviegoers.

Instead of paying the already high costs of a movie ticket (during an economic recession no less), moviegoers paid more money to see extra visual effects on an already graphic-driven film. Here’s the problem, though: Avatar is nothing more than a 160-minute screensaver. If you’re going to tout the latest advancement for something, you want to give a great first impression.

Another aspect of cost is the fact that the technology is still not widly adopted. If you want to see Avatar as it was shown in theatres, you need to buy a new television. We’ve barely transitioned to high definition televisions and you are being asked to replace your TV again to watch something you won’t be watching all that often? Don’t forget you’ll need a Blu-Ray player that can even support the 3D content.

Then there’s the 3D glasses. It costs too much for companies to compensate for all the different sizes of human heads in the world so you’re going to end up with a “one size fits all” piece. Some people are going to have to deal with constantly adjusting their 3D lenses to stay put. And what about those who wear glasses? Or what about people who get headaches?

It’s too soon for 3D. Three-D can be done without the need of glasses. News to you? It should be: Nintendo is going to release their next portable gaming device, the Nintendo 3DS, that is the successor to the current Nintendo DS line of portables. The 3DS will have a screen capable of displaying 3D without using those ridiculous lenses thanks to something called “parallax barrier technology”.

We don’t need 3D yet and might not need it. It may work for Avatar but it’s not going to work on everything else. Do you really want to see All My Children in 3D? Probably not.