Well, I don't want a last-minute, sloppy 3D conversion like Voyage had. If the filmmakers film the movie in 3D I won't have a problem with it. I just don't see a point in it.

But making movies in 3D can be pretty costly, so if there is a smaller budget, I'd much rather have them spend the money on more useful things like production design, quality actors, Aslan etc.

If I had been asked this a month ago, I probably would have given a resounding, "No!", but after seeing Gravity I've gotten a new respect for 3D and the dimensions it can add to the story.

The scene where the kids are looking down at Narnia from Aslan's Country and when they're being blown down from Aslan's Country could look really sweet. I'm still a bit apprehensive about 3D though. It has the potential to be cheesy and unnecessary. Not every movie can be Gravity.

Hmmm, it really depends on the budget the Mark Gordon Company or an attached film distributor gives SC. If it's a low budget film, I don't think 3-D would be worth it.

I do not think there would really be a huge point to make Sliver Chair in 3D, or convert it into 3D unless they made a lot of money from it. Spending the money on making it in 3D is not worth it, if they don't make a lot of money.

Only if it is filmed in 3D. Post-production 3D is notorious for being awful. I remember when people had their concerns about VDT and Apted reassured us that it wouldn't be a "cheap post-produced 3D", but then it turned out it was anyway.

I may not have a problem with it being in 3D as long as they do it and film it right. VDT in 3D was just awful.

You know that it will be released in 3D whether they film it in 3D or not.

I think it depends on whether it can serve the story OR maybe it can make you feel like you're really there in Narnia! That would actually be cool. For a long time I thought 3D was dumb and very gimmicky. More recently I've felt like it could partially serve some purpose to some movies, as Reepicheep775 mentioned. Gravity was great in 3D. Not every movie needs 3D though.

So it kind of comes down to can they afford it and can they use it in a way that keeps it from being gimmicky or only using it a couple of times with having stuff fly out at you once or twice. If it's just that gimmicky stuff, then I saw forget it.

If it's good 3D, maybe that will draw some appeal to the film for non-Narnia fans???

The question is whether it should be filmed in 3D, and I say absolutely yes. It's like being asked "Should it be filmed in color, or 5K?" in my opinion. The two most amazing and artistically incredible visual film experiences are from least to greatest (haven't seen Gravity yet), Avatar and then The Hobbit in 3D HFR (worthless in regular 3D IMO).

3D can be a gimmick, sure, but so can special effects, props, sets, or what have you. Some may not appreciate 3D at all, and that is a matter of taste. I get it. And to an extent, 35mm has an attractive look to it (why Star Wars Ep 1 at least looks better than Ep 2 or 3). I'm convinced it is here to stay and improve and once they can get the glasses to disappear, it will solidify itself as mainstream film.

It should be filmed in 3D...

1. so the conversion process doesn't hurt it. The conversion process has improved, but I've never seen a film in 3D that was converted where I couldn't tell.

2. as long as care is taken with the shots, it can be one more layer of excellence for the filmmaking and keep it more future proof. And just for the record, I've seen Avatar and The Hobbit since in 2D. You don't miss the 3D because of how it's shot, until you're watching 3D, and then you remember how excellent it was.

I would mostly echo Rillian's thoughts. The only place where I would differ in opinion is in saying it must be shot in 3D. Personally, I thought the 3D in Dawn Treader was just fine, and given the likelihood of budget restraints on Silver Chair, I think post production conversion is all we are likely to get.

With that said, I'd like the option of seeing it in 3D. The height of Aslan's mountain, the flight on the back of the owls, the journey through the wild lands of the north, the massiveness of the Giants of Harfang... all of these moments scream for 3D treatment.

The height of Aslan's mountain, the flight on the back of the owls, the journey through the wild lands of the north, the massiveness of the Giants of Harfang... all of these moments scream for 3D treatment.

Good points. I vote for 3D as well, as long as the budget will support it without making other compromises. And I really, really like the high frame rate for fast action sequences - I actually find it much easier to follow what's going on when I can see it more clearly. The only downside is that I notice some CGI effects don't stand up to it well. I really noticed this during the [way overdone, IMHO] barrel chase scene in Hobbit 2, when the HFR made it obvious that "Legolas" was totally an animated CGI figure skipping across the rocks. It was a lot more noticeable in HFR 3D than in regular 2D!

So they just need to keep improving CGI to keep up with everything else.

Considering the fact that 3D literally saved Dawn Treader's box office from being a complete disaster, I think its safe to assume Silver Chair will be released in 3D. Whether its a artistic or commercial reason I'm not sure.

Well, when the interests of artistry and commerce coincide, I think that's a good thing!

Thanks for all these replies. Good points. I think that a few people had it right on here, about releasing it in 3-d for extra box office. That should help the gross. I've never seen 3-d before, and I don't think I'd be a fan. But I think it should help the gross.

Personally, I'm not a fan of 3D, and as a matter of fact I've found that most 3D movies purely visually lack the depth and perspective that many standard, old-fashioned 2D films offer (as odd as that may sound, because technically they are supposed to achieve exactly the opposite!) Completely echoing the notoriousness of 3D post production only - that's about the lamest films can get. Even a movie filmed in 3D like The Hobbit doesn't always cut it - I watched The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey both in 3D and 2D, and I have to admit I loved the latter better. So personally, I wouldn't go to see The Silver Chair in 3D, and that's just a matter of personal taste.
But I think it's pretty obvious that it will be released in 3D because that's the new craze and it will get the box office numbers up. And I'm not against it - if it works, it works! I'll just go to watch it in 2D
It is a shame, though, that any conversation about The Silver Chair recently seems to always ends on the note of money...I do feel there's a bit of a stifling air whenever the subject comes up, like everyone needs The Silver Chair to make big bucks, make big bucks! I understand why it's important, after VDT and all, but all the same I hope they don't get their creative freedom stifled because of cliches (and a release in 3D sort of falls into that category - they could film something that looks more beautiful in 2D, but release it in 3D for the money, or cheapen a shot to look amazing in 3D, like some sort of chase scene or something falling and get carried away with it instead of investing into character development, etc. It's not necessary likely, but there are limitations that could possibly (again, not necessarily, but possibly) stifle creative freedom). A release in 3D could be amazing and get the film where it needs to go, but I hope it won't act as a boundary for creative thought, as far as actual cinematography goes.