Seriously,, I'm encouraging action film makers to get involve in this new technology which sprung up in 2005. The whole Disney, pixar animation thing is good with RealD, but just doesn't cut it with the wow factor. I'm more happier to watch something like my bloody valentine 3D cause its such a different experience with showing a real person in 3d visuals.. I would love to see future films being made into a Imax RealD adoption like the new Star Trek film or Harry potter and the half-blood prince.. I'm just happy that the new final destination film will cure my addiction to 3 dimensional filming.

Come on folks, this is not the equivilant of going from silent to talkies or from black & white to color. And neither is this a cost neutral change. Sure there are people who will invest full tilt into this technology, just because they can. But movies like this one are made for world audiences. As Rod (#17) said, what is going to be the reaction of the vast majority of a world wide audience that sees it in 2D? Is the film going to hold up?

Patricia makes a very good point.
I have one eye that doesn't always point in exacty the same direction as the other giving trouble with depth perception. It's just a little bit (no trouble driving for instance) but it does make it quite straining when watching a 3D feature.

How many people are affected by this? Looking at the amount of people with contacts or glasses and guessing quite a percentage of them will have trouble with 3D, then how big an audience will be lost? Or has 3D gotten so much better that less people will have trouble?

Just forgetting for a moment that all over the world countless cinema's will have to convert. Untill that time, how does a 3D look in 2D?

glasses on glasses results in a blurred and uncomfortable viewing. peripheral vision is effected too (objects to the right and left of direct vision are blurred)…

Unfortunately a large % of movie goers like me wear glasses…some don't mind watching a movie in a substandard way, but I suspect that the majority will…so with time, less sales of 3D tickets

Will 3D replace all 2D cinema screens? No.

Will 3D take a sizeable portion of the market? Yes — for as long as this fad lasts

Generally adds:
1. Possibility of more interesting camera angles
2. Cool factor (though this will probably go away as people get more jaded and see more and more 3D movies)
3. Immersion (Most important one for me)

I thought some of the scenes of MVA showed the possibility of really cool scenes in future 3D films… (I was like wow, if this were regular non-kid/stylized 3D this scene would look insane.) I actually thought MVA was really good with not putting too many "throwing/pointing" things at you scenes. (I was really sad though that the nerdy sci-fi references didn't work too well.) Beowulf was REALLY bad in that department. The part I really connected with is the space scene. After seeing BSG on my HDTV and seeing space scenes in 3D I am really excited to see any 3D, high resolution films set in space. Freaking. Beautiful.

And someone was saying color can be used to say something about the characters. Well distance/depth can too. It's already been done! How many times have you seen another character in the background, usually out of focus and really far away symbolizing the distance between the character in the foreground and the character in the background. Prob. just enhanced in 3D.

That's a very silly comparison. Color can be used by filmmakers for artistic purposes, to say something about the story/characters.

While the jump to 3D is inevitable, I seriously cannot see any purpose to it apart from using it as a technical gimmick.

What Exactly Does Color Add to a Movie? Color, of course! As opposed to when color was introduced, the public now would find it an anomaly to see a movie produced in black and white.

What Exactly Does 3-D Add to a Movie? Depth, of course! It leads to an increased sensation of not only depth but also of "presence," "visual impact," and "increased sharpness."

The smudges, the slipping glasses, the reflections are all temporary distractions that will be left by the roadway with technological progress. 3-D will be here to stay, as was the case with color. It is not a gimmick; it is just that the technology has improved.

But one small note about 3D. It only works if you have two functional eyes. That's how we obtain depth perception. I have one nearly blind eye so I'm not the audience for 3D.

However, with people willing pay more for it, the expansion of digital projection and that fact that most of these animated movies already have the depth information needed to present them in 3D with no real extra cost, it's inevitable we'll see tons more. Let's just hope the directors continue to hone their ability to use it to tell the story instead of filling their films with gimmicks (although the paddle ball in MvA is a great homage to Vincent Price's "House of Wax").

As for 3D in the home … I recently watched part of Mr. Selick's "Coraline" on a 3D TV and thought it was as good as any movie experience – minus the crowd, sticky floors and talkers. I've also seen several PC games on 3D monitors and think there's a lot of exciting opportunity for 3D in the home still to come!

Something like Monsters Vs. Aliens or UP! does not need 3D. I don’t think it really brings anything to the table. Coraline was another movie where I felt that seeing it in 2D was superior to the 3D because if the story is strong and the characters are whole, the 3d is just a distraction.

My one reservation is Avatar. I think Avatar will be the make or break for the technology because it’s the movie doing a lot of pioneering in the field. If this movie fails to really turn up the quality and effect I don’t see the technology really being financially viable (MvA head honcho says to produce the movie in 3D adds 15 million to the price tag).

How many movies did you get lost in when watching them?
Because of the story, the acting, the way the director tells it. And all without 3D.

For kid oriented animation yes, than visuals can be just as important as lets say story.
There it might add something.

I'm affraid there's gonna be a lot of movies being sold purely on 3D. A bit like it is with computergames where there's a race for the most impressive visuals with gameplay, story, length of the game and other things slowly falling to the background.

Maybe it'll just take time, our kids probably won't know any better. We're just stuck in the transitional fase. We're guinnea pigs.
Philips has actually developped a 3D TV, so no need for stupid glasses. That will actually help making 3D the norm. Just takes time before we all have one.

For now I can still enjoy Wiley E. Coyote in good old flat 2D (and it doesn't get much flatter). 3D would just ruin the magic for me.

So, while film studios boast about how amazing 3D is and how its the future of the medium, they are also charging twice as much for a 3D ticket. In this failing economy and what with all the rumors regarding actors, writers or directors strike, it makes sense for film studios to back this new format.

Still, I'm not going to give up on 3D just yet. I'm waiting for James Cameron's Avatar to come out. While Mr. Cameron is certainly a big part of the system, he has always supported new technologies which revolutionize film and add greatly to the overall effect and success of his movies. Someone like JC believes that technology should be used to make films better. So, when I see filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron & Peter Jackson talking about a new technology revolutionizing the medium I pay attention.

Cameron is currently refilming Titanic in 3D, which critics have claimed to be mind-boggling. George Lucas says the Original Star Wars Trilogy will be ready for its 3D premiere by 2011. Both Toy Story films are being prepared for 3D debuts. So, talk to me this December and I'll let you know what I think about 3D.

Until then, I'll believe most studios are simply using 3D to get more of my money. The glasses aren't so bad…and boy did that Lionsgate sign sure look good in Bloody Valentine 3D.

But ultimately, I LOVE THE 3-D, and here's why: I think it makes the action sequences way more thrilling. Because you're very much "inside" the action. I just think it makes everything more exhilarating and even makes you brace yourself from moment to moment. As for the sequences that don't involve such frenetic action, I was amazed when B.O.B. was super close-up to my eyes and I could observe the awe-inspiring beauty and wonder of the character's form. I thought it was truly amazing.

I think 3-D should really only be with action flicks (action comedies, action thrillers), or with films that have incredible character detail and stunning cinematography and set design (which is why UP and A CHRISTMAS CAROL will probably be fine with me too).

I like 3-D. It's quite a dazzling spectacle. I had a lot of fun with MONSTERS VS. ALIENS and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had as much fun if it was just 2-D. And that might seem like a problem on the movie's part (story-wise), but I don't believe that seeing as how the film was completely created and MEANT to be seen in 3-D.

But ultimately, yes, I'm pro-3-D. :]