'Godzilla' Cinematographer Speaks Out Against 3D, Go See 'Godzilla' In 3D!

Godzilla 3D
Photo: Warner Bros.

It's not as if Seamus McGarvey hasn't worked on films that have been released in 3D. For example, he shot The Avengers as well as this weekend's Godzilla, but both were post-converted into 3D. As for his thoughts on the format, well, in an interview with Pushing Pixels he doesn't seem to be much of a fan.

I think it's very much a marketing gimmick. I saw "Gravity" last night, and I thought for the first time that it made really good use of that. "Hugo" looked pretty good in 3D as well.

As a cinematographer I absolutely despise it. To shoot native 3D is so complex. The machinery involved completely goes against any kind of fluidity to the camera. It takes so long to set up. We actually started shooting "The Avengers" on real 3D using Red cameras and AnimaTechnica rig. After one day of shooting the director said that we're not doing it. Sam Jackson and Stellan Skarsgård said that we better get our act together or they are out. It really got that serious. Each lens change was 45 minutes, it was a disaster to align the cameras up. In the end we did it in post which is a much better way of doing it. You can dynamic shifting dimensionality during the shot, play with it quite a bit. But I really hope it goes away.

There are a couple things here. First off, he believes 3D is a gimmick and as everyone who doesn't like 3D, but refuses to speak ill of Martin Scorsese or Alfonso Cuaron's films, Hugo and Gravity still get love as if complimenting the 3D somehow makes either film better.

Next, he clearly has no interest in shooting in 3D, which I'm sure any DP comfortable with shooting in 3D would probably argue against, but he goes a little further with his reasons against shooting in 3D when it's suggested that if it's merely about the technical side the equipment will likely improve:

I'm sure it will. But the problem is that aside from the technical difficulties of achieving a 3D shot, there's something about the film in 2D. We don't want an impression of reality when we go to the cinema, we don't want that brightness, I mean I don't want it anyway. I like the inherent flatness, and creating depth with lighting cues, with focus, with darkness and light. That is, to me, essentially cinematographic.

Then, when we get to the exhibition stage, everything's darker. You wear the glasses which is actually a pain that corrals your vision and experience. It's just not fun in cinema, and I always get a headache when I watch a 3D movie. Everything seems fuzzier. I don't think that it looks as good, and I'm hoping that it will go away. 3D sales are dropping significantly, and kids in the cinema are not responding either. A lot of the studios are staying away from it now. In fact, "Godzilla" will get a predominantly 2D release, with a 3D version.

When it comes to Godzilla, which I am actually about to walk out of my house and go see in IMAX 3D, McGarvey says, "We shot Godzilla as though it were a 2D movie." Great, good to know I'm seeing it how it was meant to be seen.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/RonOnealFresh/ Ron Oneal Fresh

    Gravity made the 3D work really well, Hugo to a lessor extent. But still, It's not worth forking over the extra money. Even If they fix the problems with putting on the glasses, the headaches you get from the image, the darkness in many scenes. Hell, even If they manage to make 3D a factor in the narrative. It's still not worth the money. Studios must think that 3D is some revolution like from Black & White to Color or 4:3 to Anamorphic Widescreen like CinemaScope/Cinerama/MGM etc Widescreen. It's not. 3D is a nuisance not an experience, pure and simple.

    • Basiclife1

      Have to disagree. Gravity _wasn't bad_ when converted to 3D but it was nothing like Avatar and other films which were actually filmed natively.

      Avatar was the film that convinced me that "real" 3D had something to offer. Unfortunately, studios seem to prefer filming in the cheaper 2D, then converting which gives dodgy perspective and makes characters feel like 2 cardboard cut-outs in a 3D scene.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Silga/ Silga

    I despise 3D more than anything. This new 3D trend is ridiculous. I don't know who can enjoy their films so dark and horribly looking. I respect Nolan for his stance against it. And as I say, as long as there's Woody Allen, there's gonna be at least one 2D film a year. And just today I found out that local distributor here in Lithuania didn't bring Godzilla 2D version. So, I'll just have to wait for blu-ray.

    • drows_speed

      Save 3d for the house. 3d TV's do a better job than the cenima. I don't know why, don't care. Fact- Avatar 3d rocks on my kdl 55w900a.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Samu/ Samu

    Only times I've been impressed by 3D effects were Avatar and Gravity but generally I hate 3D. It makes my eyes hurt after a while and I have trouble making out fast moving scenes. After the first Hobbit film in 48fps 3D I just decided I'm done with 3D but I made an exception with Gravity when everyone (like Laremy) told you gotta see it on the biggest screen possible.

    I'm seeing Godzilla in 2D tomorrow but I have to go see it in a smaller and older movie theater because the primary theater is showing only 3D. This has been a trend for some time... I hope it dies rather sooner than later.

  • Guest

    Gareth Edwards-director. Cinematographer-McGarvey.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/ Brad Brevet

      Ugh, what I get for posting a story and running out the door.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/EPayneDDS/ EPayneDDS

    I'm being really mature here: 3D sucks ass!

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/jinjuriki187/ jinjuriki187

    the only films i truly liked in 3d were gravity, life of pi and avatar

    • drows_speed

      Apparently Tangled did 3d very well.

      CNET has a page for the best 3d blu-rays.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Ian/ Ian

    This is one of those areas where the public has the advantage over critics...we get to choose to see a movie in 2D (which as he says is clearly now the case in the U.S. and Canadian markets), where to see it, even what screen to see it on if you get to that level of detail (I do). McGarvey hits on most (though not all) of the problems with 3D, but he's wrong about one thing: studios staying away from it. Honestly I have no idea where he gets that notion from, because there are more 3D releases now than there have ever been. It's almost exclusively an international play at this point, but even for opening weekends in the U.S. most theatres I monitor regularly will book their shows roughly 50/50 between the two formats. Of course by the second weekend they cut the 3D show count back significantly, and it's rare for a movie to keep showing in 3D for more than a month. As far as who actually makes those decisions, I don't know how much of it is the studio and how much of it is the theatres. But as long as global audiences keep drooling over it, studios will keep shoving it out. I just know the last movie I saw in 3D was Avatar, which looked awful. And as I have said ever since, I will never ever see a movie in 3D again.

  • robotsrule

    I think I liked 3D Imax exactly one time and it was for Life Of Pie. Other than that I've always had a bad time watching films in that format. In SF there are a number of theaters that pretty much only show movies in 2D and they also happen to be the theaters where they don't torture the audience with thirty minuets of ads and trailers.

    • Goldenchest

      Some people like the trailers though .-.
      It's a good way of catching up with upcoming movies and getting exposed to films that you wouldn't otherwise know about.

      • robotsrule

        I'd like trailers a lot more if they didn't spoil huge parts of movies. The idiots in Hollywood think they have to show you the movie to get you to see it. In truth creating mystery around a film is the best way to get people to see it. The more secret the film's production is, the more curious people get about it.

        • summer summers

          Wrong! In the industry, the REALITY with true audience research (and not mere layman guesses) PROVES that when the trailer doesn't reveal enough, people will stay away from movies. That doesn't mean that trailers need to SPOIL the movie, but they need to show enough. I don't know where you're getting that mystery means more butts in seats - that's simply UNTRUE the research has shown!

          • robotsrule

            The research has shown that people are idiots in that case. Because they are spoiling the movies. And people don't seem to mind. But I mind, because I'm not the average movie goer, and I'm also not a rube.

  • PJ Edwards

    Would have expected the opposite. Thanks for posting this so I can save my money!

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Newbourne/ Newbourne

    Why don't you go see it in 2D, Brad?

  • Adam

    I wish they would offer IMAX screenings without 3D. Because as it is, I really want to see Godzilla on the biggest screen possible, but it's only available in 3D.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Adu/ Adu

      Yeah that really sucks...I wanted to watch it in IMAX as well but there is no way in hell I'm going to see it in 3D

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Ian/ Ian

      The "biggest screen possible" notion is something IMAX has parlayed from the 70mm IMAX days when they actually did build massive, standalone screens. These days they're really no bigger than any other big 1.85:1 screen. Depending on how the theatres around you are designed, there may be screens that are actually bigger that aren't IMAX or large format at all. This is especially true for a scope (2.39:1) movie like Godzilla which won't fill an IMAX screen anyway.

    • Ross

      I completely agree. Here are some large-format 2D options for Godzilla:

      RPX locations for USA:

      AVX locations in Canada:
      http://www.cineplex.com/Theatres/UltraAVX (click "locations")

  • andyluvsfilms

    Those who love 3D are probably the same people that think explosions are exciting, give me 2D, a decent story and some actors and there's a good chance you'll get my money.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Winchester/ Winchester

      I'll take 2D but I've definitely seen some explosions better than some entire films.

      • andyluvsfilms

        The only explosion i can think of that i thought 'Wow, that was really good' was the beginning of Children Of Men. Don't get me wrong, i like big action films but done poorly they can be really boring ie Man Of Steel, every Transformers film, Pirates 2,3,4.

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Winchester/ Winchester

    I think the last time I went to see a film in 3D was 2009 or something. And it wasn't even 'Avatar', I think it was 'A Christmas Carol'. I never even did 'Gravity' in 3D. It doesn't stop any of them being good or bad films though because it's therefore not a factor for me.

    If they can make it so you don't need the glasses then I would maybe change my mind. Time will tell but I don't plan on seeing anything in 3D for the forseeable future.

  • anthonyqld

    3D looks great if it's filmed natively in 3D. If it's post-converted it looks horrible.

  • CharlieeB

    Absolutely love 3D, whether in the theatre or on my 3DTV. Can't imagine going to the theatre to see a movie like Godzilla and choosing to see it in 2D (assuming the 3D is well done). Otherwise I'll just wait until it's on blueray anyway.

  • wrath_of_fett

    I have never understood the outright hate of 3D. I don't know if it's a knee-jerk reaction to having to pay an extra couple of dollars (which I agree is BS), or if people have vision problems that make it an uncomfortable experience. Maybe people are just stuck in their ways and refuse to accept something different from their childhood. I don't know, it's weird. I agree the 3D is not only varying in quality (like EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF FILM), but that it works exponentially better on 3DTVs. I would say that often I will see a 3D film in theaters and come out thinking I didn't get enough of a 3D effect, then I buy the 3D Blu-ray and am blown away by it. But regardless of these, what I would call trivial complaints, why HATE it so much? Certainly in America and in almost all venues there is a companion 2D release. Here in Madison, WI we have too large screens, an IMAX and an UltraScreen. One is showing the 2D release and one is showing the 3D release. I will be seeing the 3D version...because DUH! So many whiners and haters stomping their feet because the entire world isn't conforming to their "I'm staying in my cave" mentality. Whatever dude.

    • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Adu/ Adu

      emmmm...mainly because it usually does very little to enhance the viewing experience.

      • wrath_of_fett

        I disagree because it adds dimension, a Z plane to the image. It's the difference between looking at a photograph and looking at a sculpture. Some people obviously can't appreciate that, which is fine. By why spew so much venom at those who CAN? It's just baffling.

        • http://imqwerty.wordpress.com/ Jordan B.

          Sure, it adds a Z-plane to the image, you can say that all you want. It's technically true. But what exactly does that do for us? Usually the answer to that question is, "Nothing."

          • Rawlio Spamocrat

            I find it helps when the film making team can't be bothered to compose their shots so that the immense amount of crap moving in the foreground doesn't blend in with the immense amount of crap moving in the background rendering the characters completely impossible to locate. (I'm looking at you, Michael Bay)

            Well done 3D with no gimmicks (It's cute at Disneyworld, but I don't want the 4th wall broken unless it's in support of the story) is fine, but rarely is it worth the glasses, the potential headaches, the dimmer screen, and the extra cash.

          • wrath_of_fett

            What does color do for you? What does sound do for you? What does a large screen do for you? What does surround sound do for you? What do different aspect ratios do for you?

            • http://imqwerty.wordpress.com/ Jordan B.

              Those all do far more for me than adding a Z-plane to the image and forcing me to use shitty 3D glasses to see the "added depth."

              Depth can be added to a film image in so many better, more interesting ways than by simply opting for 3D (whether filmed that way or converted) and saying, "Hey, now there's depth," which most filmmakers who use 3D seem to do.

            • summer summers

              WELL SAID! So moronic to ask "what does it do for you"!?!? Huh??? IT ENHANCES YOUR EXPERIENCE of course!!!

        • John Adams

          A huge number of people can not see a stereoscopic picture - a medical fact. It's not that we can't see 3D, there are dozens of other visual cues that allow us to create a 3D mental image. Stereo '3D' films are a world away from a sculpture, where you just have to move your head slightly to see the change in perspective. A badly made stereo image will give many people a headache. An exaggerated stereo effect will also make objects look smaller and closer: e.g. the shots of the spacecraft in Avatar that looked like a little plastic model placed a few metres away. So I will not go to a '3D' movie again. I agree we can just choose to see the movie in '2D' but it seems very rare these days to be able to see a '2D' version in IMAX. I was really hoping to see Godzilla in IMAX and in the way it was shot (2D), but it appears that is not possible.

        • John Adams

          Shooting with stereo cameras is expensive, difficult, and very time consuming. I would rather the time and money were spent on creating better cinematography, more care over lighting, composition, colour, acting, extra 'takes', dialogue, narrative, script writing etc etc etc.

      • summer summers

        Of course it enhances the viewing experience!!!!!!!!! To say it doesn't is insane!!! So insane in fact there's no point explaining - either you've never seen a 3D film, or have physical problems with your body adjusting to it!! Cos otherwise, NOBODY would say such a ridiculous thing!!!

    • summer summers


  • Ross

    The best way to tell if a movie will deliver in 3D (like Avatar, Life of Pi, Gravity, etc) or not is whether any of the 3D is native. Although Gravity used 2D cameras, all of the CGI effects shots were generated in 3D, and not post-converted. Godzilla is completely converted, so will probably be a dud in 3D.

    Here are some large-format 2D options for those frustrated with the mandatory 3D in IMAX:
    RPX locations for USA:

    AVX locations in Canada:
    http://www.cineplex.com/Theatres/UltraAVX (click "locations")

  • http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/profile/Elijah/ Elijah

    Thanks for posting this Brad, it's fun reading how cinematographers treat 3D even if it's an overall negative view. First off if the 3D is treated like a gimmick it's gonna come off like a gimmick. The Avengers was horrible in 3D because they didn't put enough effort into the post conversion process. Makes me a little upset hearing that he thinks doing post is a better way to do the conversion because of how shoddy and flat all of the shots looked in that film. Gravity gave post conversion a good name because they spent 2-3 years on it, but I understand setting up the 3D camera being a hassle. Still McGarvey's attitude on the whole thing's kinda crummy so I'll stick with Godzilla in 2D.

    The first Hobbit film I saw was 3D 48 FPS and it killed my eyes, I recall looking down for a straight five minutes to compose myself. The second one I saw in regular 3D and it's some of the more impressive uses of 3D I've seen. There's a certain glee I get from people experimenting with breaking away from the screen and attempting the illusion of a specific depth. If you do "The Avengers" level of post conversion it amounts to a flat subject against a flat backdrop and it looks incredibly lame. At least Life of Pi and Gravity played with varying levels of depth, makes for more bang for your buck. I'll just hang out with James Cameron at the party and make silly faces at McGarvey behind his back.

  • JAB

    I love IMAX and can do entirely without 3D. "Avatar" was so amazing in 3D/IMAX that it made you forget the inane story.
    Thank Nolan for not offering up "Interstellar" in 3D. I can't wait to see it in IMAX.

  • Vern Nobles

    Seamus the actors were correct, you and or your crew need to get your act together!
    Sure a turntable with vinyl going thru a tube amp and electro static speakers is something we all should hear. Film with anamorphic lenses is a creamy cinematic
    masterpiece, but the less then top 3% can't afford the equipment to enjoy this. The mass public downloads music on itunes and streams movies. Let us help get the masses into theaters to enjoy an 3d experience experience they cant download.
    On Pompeii 3D and Resident Evil 3D we did lens changes and rig alignment in less
    then 5 min. We put cameras on Cranes, Bungie motorcycle rigs, steadicam, and
    countless other rigs. The tech was only used as tool to enhance the experience.
    We did 50+ setups a day with Cinesail 3d Atom rigs. It's sad that the 3D experience is
    being destroyed by those that think a computer simulation added to the cinematographers craft can simulate true 3D photography.

    • John Adams

      Great to know it is possible to film an accurate stereo image simply, quickly and cheaply! But I'm only interested if you can let me visualise the image without glasses, light loss, colour loss, headaches, and on the biggest IMAX screen.

    • summer summers

      WELL SAID! I too am surprised he claims to have taken so long to set a shot up - i've seen it being done faster than 45 minutes!

  • wrath_of_fett

    Just got back from Godzilla 3d. You are an absolute stubborn FOOL if you don't see it in 3d. Massive beasts stomping all around you, tsunamis and buidings crashing all around, a few shots that make you want to dodge ot of the way. Oh well, your loss. Just remember that not liking 3d is your opinion, because the packed house that experienced it with me applauded it several times.

    • Ingram

      I absolutley agree. If people want to miss out on an exciting and immersive experiance then fine. Just stop going out your way to run it down. Theres plenty of bad habits hollywood has that we would all like to see die, like the twilight or hunger games sagas. More movies are being aimed at children than ever and everyone has a gripe with a little 3D effect being added? You can turn it on and off on your TV so whats the problem?

      Like many others I have found great enjoyment from 3D entertainment and the people I have shown have went right out and bought themselves a 3DTV which they have yet to complain about. Enjoy it or not fine but put the pitchforks down and lets all enjoy some movies regardless of the extra dimension. Peace

  • summer summers

    Don't know why many are complaining against 3D! I for one, LOVE IT! I don't get headaches, i don't feel extra "darkness" cos it's all balanced out, and i don't think it's a nuisance! I think there's a small number of people who face problems with 3D and being sour grapes, they rather the whole world not have joy with it! Well suck it up dudes - MANY ENJOY 3D and it's here to stay!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • robotsrule

      Either you're 12 years old or you're a troll working for AMC theaters. I can't decide which. Also I nominate this for good comments.

  • summer summers

    Hmmm.................. Brad, i think your last para is a bit confusing the way it's written - so you're going to watch it in 3D, - but then you say you are watching it the way it's suppose to be watched i.e. 2D?!?

  • Pro – Newb&Pro

    Thing is if you are not going to film in 3D here is a tip, don't bother wasting our money. Mistakenly, i saw Godzilla in 3d last night (hoping to see 2D).

    There was no 3D effect at all we had the glasses, taking them off you could see the image split but at no point did anything feel in my face or far away. It was like the screen was behind thick glass.

    I've seen several films in true 3D and post-convert 3D, I own a 3D tv and the effect is incredible but fake 3D is noticeably bad. Godzilla was an amazing film, i loved it but i felt cheated out of my money for paying for 3D and being ever so slightly uncomfortable wearing cheap glasses the whole film for an effect i was not getting.

    I love 3D films, this was not 3D this was 3D written on it with a bigger price tag and that was it.

    • wrath_of_fett

      That was not my experience at all. I felt it was the best 3D experience I've had in awhile. I also have a 3DTV, the first 3DTV as a matter of fact, the Samsung PN58C7000. I think you are probably just trolling and didn't actually see Godzilla in 3D.

      • Pro – Newb&Pro

        I experience it with true 3D films such as The Lego Movie, Despicable Me 2, The Hobbit, Monsters University, Toy Story 3 & Avatar (first 3d film i ever saw, it was incredible). Hence my annoyance at fake, cheap 3D in Godzilla, all the avenger films, Amazing Spiderman 2, Man of Steel.

        All fail compare to true 3D films which i absolutely love. Don't believe me? I dont really care but here you can see for yourself "http://realorfake3d.com/".

        If you actually enjoyed the "3D" in Godzilla, great! Not sure what you are moaning about to be honest, i get a few people come complaining about 3D but when ever you ask them what they have seen it's been fake 3D so what do they know?

        If you like Godzilla "3D" just enjoy it, but I think we are both a bit old to be using words like "trolling" and "go sit in your soggy diaper".

        • wrath_of_fett

          Well post-conversion 3D has come a long way. Even shot-in-3D films use post conversion to correct some shots so it's not a black or white issue. Avatar, the highest reagrded 3D film in history, has many post-converted shots. If you couldn't tell the difference, that shows you the invalidity of your argument.

          What I was objecting to was your insistence that Godzilla doesn't have any 3D effect at all, which is either a blatant lie, you have horrible eyesight, or you didn't see it. I vote the latter because of your obvious ill-informed bias against post-conversion which would have excluded you from seeing it. It's either that or you said to yourself "God I HATE post-converted 3D! So I can see Godzilla in 2D, or go see it in post-converted 3D.....3D IT IS!"

          • Pro – Newb&Pro

            It really hasn't come a long way; In fact Godzilla looked as if it had less depth than the avengers did which was also fake 3D. This could just be a difference in studios, but the latest 3D avenger film Captain America TWS looked no better
            than avengers.

            In regards to avatars post converted scenes, I don't seem to remember saying I didn't notice them (or even reference them at all) so no, my "argument" as you call it (despite the fact this is my personal experience of seeing 3D) hasn't show to be invalid.

            Close up shots are near impossible to film in 3D because of the massive lenses they use in most films (as I’m sure you know). So avatar did what Gravity did, film two 2D shots then lay over each other to give depth, which is NOT what they usually do with post conversion. Standard post conversion is using a
            single image.

            This method gives forced depth which looks really good, not as good as the real thing but a hell of a lot better than normal post conversion methods.

            You can say I’m lying all you want about Godzilla 3D but I’m telling everyone post converted 3D is crap, everyone I’ve gone with to see a post converted 3D film in the past agrees with me. It has no depth, it is for studios who can't be arsed to film in 3D (no offence to the studios because it is very hard to film in 3D) and I won't waste money again on it.

            But you know, do whatever makes you happy, you think it looks as good, go ahead and watch it, makes no difference to me, you enjoy fake 3D I enjoy real 3D only and I save money paying for 2D when there is a fake 3D option.

            If you want to go ahead and just argue that I’m ill informed, that’s fine. Despite the fact this is my experience not what I've been told.

            If you want to go ahead and just argue that I’m blatantly lying, that’s fine. Despite the fact there would be no point and my arguments have been valid and correct to support what I said.

            If you want to go ahead and just argue that I have horrible eyesight, that’s fine. I guess that would mean everyone else I see 3D films with have bad eyesight as well as they all agree with me as well as everyone who supports http://realorfake3d.com.

            Anyway, you enjoy watching fake 3D and I'll enjoy saving money and enjoying Real 3D, I'm seeing X-men DoFP tomorrow filmed in real 3D and I intend to enjoy it.

            Take care.

  • http://www.twoih.com Rob

    Mr McGarvey is entitled to his opinion and it confirms my suspicion that current film makers are not the generation of film makers that are unable to take 3D on. They are 2D moviemakers. Godzilla is made as a 2D movie, fast edits and movement to keep interest when there is an absence of plot, dialogue or story. The best 3D I've seen is from independent film makers that use the 3D format properly, slow movement and long scenes that allow a viewer (one who is 3D sensitive) to savour the scene. It is my hope 3D will help increase the importance of plots to films. There will always be those that reject progress, had Mr McGarvey been around making black and white films he, no doubt, would have bad mouthed colour, it being too difficult to change. Some people are just like that.

  • bombo clat

    Here in the Netherlands , we dont have an option to see blockbusters in 2D or Imax 2D . All we get is 3D shoved down our throats every time a big movie comes out. It frustrates me to the core , forcing me to look to german or belgian cinemas which do allow the option to see those movies in 2D.

  • http://www.davidstreever.com/ David Streever

    I don't understand the tone in this article; it sounds aggrieved. Garvey made it for 2D. It is available in 3D, in case you prefer it, but the cinematographer believes the 2D experience is better.

    So, go see it in 2D? If the only point is, "I like Imax movies in 3D, I want them!", then I am not sure what the point is here.

  • PM

    In my city, its such a pathetic situation that either
    1 2D versions are not released and only 3D versions are released OR
    2 2D versions cost more than 3D versions

    which clearly explains that 3D is deliberately being forced upon the consumers

  • John Blaze

    The big difference is films shot in "REAL 3D" like Avatar and Gravity, and ones shot using that cheesy pop up effect like Avengers and Godzilla. In my experience, if it's shot in real 3d go see that version, if it was done in post save your money, unless you want to watch a live action pop up book. with characters that look flat around the edges.

  • Brett Kohli

    to the poster who said post conversions are never good, Jurassic Park, amazing. Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong.

  • Brett Kohli

    Top gun too

  • No Rights

    Love IMAX and 3D only reason I goto the movies!!! You have old DNA if you get a headache!

  • madcapzany

    I think 3d is fun! I'm thinking people said all these same things when the change from silent films to 'talkies' started. As time and technology advance, so will our view of 3d. Just because the tech is not yet 'perfect', it doesn't mean it should be abandoned. So what if it takes a long time to change a lense now? If it is not abandoned, soon the tech will allow lense change at the flick of a switch...I mean, does anyone out there think that the special effects we enjoy today arrived without major headaches and tireless effort on the part of many very bright and determined people (who often met with great ridicule and doubt)? Does anyone remember the early days of video games? Pong? Have you heard about times when there were horses instead of cars? Flat world instead of round? Actually knowing how to figure things out instead of having a computer do it for you? There are printers that can make THINGS! This is the kind of stuff we saw on Star Trek that was viewed as completely impossible not so long ago. Wake up, folks! The future is here! Enjoy it, have fun with it, or step out of the way before it rolls right over you. ;)