Originally Posted by listopencil
I did watch it in 3D. We were on a time crunch and made the one o'clock show, so no choice on the 3D. I saw some occasional blurriness but I wear Rx glasses for near sightedness and didn't wear them because of the 3D glasses. The story actually lends itself to wide open spaces and lots of stuff flying around so the 3D wasn't intrusive. And the glasses were made like over sized Ray Charles sunglasses. I guess the kids at our High School have been wearing them around as a goofy new trend.
Ah ... thanks, Mr. listopencil.
So, basically, what I'm hearing (or reading, actually) is that it's okay in 3D?
I've seen several 3D movies that simply weren't all that great, to be honest ... Alice comes to mind ... and the 3D in Thor was very distracting and pointless. Avatar, on the other hand, was good. I have this theory that, if the director doesn't shoot with 3D in mind throughout the production, the result can suck. It's like an IMAX film that wasn't shot in IMAX.
To be effective, they need scenes with lots of depth-of-field, for example. Not just shots of falling objects and car parts and birds and things flying toward your face. In my opinion, when they shoot with lots of depth-of-field and/or engaging, active backgrounds, 3D is actually very interesting and can contribute to the story telling. If they don't ... well ...