For all the hoopla at about Transformers: Dark of the Moon, there is a slight undertone of desperation about its 3D presentation. 

Apparently, there is a feeling that if this film does not get a significantly large portion of its box office from 3D presentation, that would be a fatal hammer blow to that "enhancement" to the moviegoing experience. That almost feels halfway believable considering that apparently the box office influence of 3D projection has been on a real decline with the movies.  After all, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides , Kung Fu Panda 2 and Green Lantern apparently have had a shrinking portion of 3D in their grosses and it's impossible to say how many moviegoers chose not to bother seeing a film simply because it's too expensive because of that.  I know, while I reasonably enjoyed Green Lantern as a comic fan, I don't feel an overwhelming urge to see Transformers in all its high budget cheesiness yet again at a more expensive price.

As for the causes, I agree with Jeffery Katzenberg that much of the blame lies with film companies getting cheap and greedy with the gimmick.  That especially goes for the schlocky retrofit 3D processing on regularly shot films, especially bombs like The Last Airbender and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore.  All that seems to accomplish is to create a pointlessly more expensive film for a glorified optical illusion that you eventually and subconsciously ignore long before the film is over, provided you don't get eyestrain while you're at it. Of course, that doesn't include the filmmakers willing to produce 3D films from the ground up like DreamWorks Animation and James Cameron with his Avatar.  With them, their films like the brilliant How to Train Your Dragon use the projection process with a real artistic purpose and the results can be spellbinding.

That said, I don't appreciate not having the choice to seeing these films "flat" (no 3D) and the fact that they projected with appallingly low light levels is even more unacceptable. After all, I don't go to films because of the presentation gimmicks, I usually go to them for the stories and that's all that matters in the end. Of course, that criteria is a frustratingly elusive quality for film companies to rely on, so you can understand to a degree why they were hoping for something more reliable to get people to see their movies before they can on their widescreen Hi-Def TVs. But that is not enough in the end, not at the preminium they are forcing the cinemas to charge.

For me, I favour making the cinema going experience more like a grander one that makes the trip worthwhile.  To achieve that, bringing back the film short programming of the 1930s as a regular part of the programming schedule would be wonderful, it would give a fun sense of variety where you are getting more for your money.  Also taking off the premium off 3D films would help ease people's reticence to see film in the theatre, although I highly doubt any cinema companies would touch that option. There can be the option of selling cheap DVDs of the film's special features in its upcoming regular release would be fun;  imagine documentary featurettes for historical dramas, or behind-the-scenes looks at visual effect heavy films that you can enjoy when you get home.  Of course, given all the complaints about rude behaviour with people in theatres, a stricter enforcement of the rule would be welcome, such as that Texan cinema chain, The Alamo Drafthouse, who threw out that obnoxious woman for using her cell phone in the auditorium after repeated warnings and even used the ensuing irate phone call in their advertising.

Most of all, the move to digital projection in movie theatres is nonsensical to the point of being suicidal;  if people go to see something that is practically the norm in their own homes on their TVs, there is that much more reason to stay home in the first place.  Instead, Roger Ebert has the better idea of expanding use of the Maxivision film format; if you improve the viewing experience of movies projected on filmstock, you will provide a reason to see something that videorecording and/or digital project cannot provide.

As it is, as much as I value the option of home video, nothing truly beats the immersive quality of seeing films in a theatre.  There, you are in a darkened room and all your attention is focused on the big screen with a group involvement to share the emotional experience.  While at home, you have all the distraction like books and computers, the movie theatre offers something magical instead.

While that should be enough, I just hope the cinema industry can get it together to give real reasons for people to come, maybe with the measures I suggest above, or perhaps something really creative instead.  Either way, I want my movie theatres and I will mourn the tragedy if they are gone.