Well I have minor epilepsy so my doctor tells me it's not a good idea but I do it anyways I mean nothing bad happens except a little feeling I get.

Yeah exactly. I still wanna see it in 3D

I don't really care about the whole 3D aspect. It seems so highly overrated and an excuse to "throw" things at the audience. Thankfully VDT is coming out in a 2D version because that's all I want to see and that's all I'm going to see. 3D is definitely not a factor that is going to make or break the movie for me.

who gets headaches from 3D movies?

Me! Well, the only one I've seen is Avatar, but that was bad enough. I felt so sick, and it was long.
Like you, I'm afraid my cinema might choose to only show VDT in 3D, because they've been doing that with some others. I almost want to go see another movie in 3D before VDT so that I get a feel for whether it really is as bad as Avatar.

Well, not to be a downer, but Avatar is supposed to be the best live action 3D experience that has hit screens so far. It's the only 3D film that has been filmed using equipment and methods that are supposed to minimize the headache/sore eye effect.

I get headaches from 3-D movies, but I get them from the 2-D theaters as well, its just not as severe. I think it has to do with sitting in font of a giant screen for hours. Frankly though: if its Narnia, Star Trek, or Jurrassic Park- I'll live with the headache. Bring on VDT!!!!

Uuum... for me the poll is lacking one option, which is 'indifferent to 3D'... I don't love or hate 3D films, they're simply not my thing, and I won't see VoDT in 3D (although I might just once, to support the film), I'll stick to my fav 2D And I have a hunch I'll see it maaaaany times!

If I see it in 3D, it will be only once, while in 2D I plan to go a great many times!

So well, out of lack of the 'indifferent' option I chose 'not happy, will see'.

That will be awesome in 3-D

I would love to see it in 3D first but I think I probably end up watching it in 2D first. At any rate I probably won't be able to see it on opening weekend anyway. 3D movies are cool and for some movies, Avatar in particular (I thought the story was lame and very predictable), it is the only thing that makes them bearable. I'm looking forward to VotDT coming out it 3D

3D used to annoy me because things would fly out at you for no apparent reason except that for the sake of 3D. Some recent movies I have seen in 3D have changed my mind though: Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Shrek 4 (haha yes I know SHREK ). In these, the 3D just adds depth and I don't really remember anything coming straight at the audience for no reason. If VDT is done in the same way, I will be excited to see it in 3D! Hopefully, it will be because if I remember correctly, it was filmed for 2D purposes and now they will change it to 3D. (Or do all movies that eventually become 3D originate as filmed for 2D? ) Since it was not originally planned for 3D it should not have the "gimmicks" that 3D movies use.

I was happy to see that VDT will be in 3D. I just saw "Toy Story 3" in 3D today, the technology has really improved since this new "Real D" first came out. However, some people may not be able to see it in 3D because it can get pretty expensive. Either way it will be a great movie!

i'm pretty unhappy at this fact, as i find it detracts from the story by overloading with visual effects, which may very possibly mean the plot may have been slacked off about. i don't know, this isn't a very good reason. 3d just...irks me, as does the tendency that people always push toward modernity! and technological advancement! and whatever is newest! bleh. it's like taking a perfectly good film and blurring it to confine viewers to behind a pair of glasses... ehh.

however, i recognise that this means the movie will sell more, if there's a 2d version also released in cinemas, i'll be happy.

The Last Airbender was released today, Hollywood's latest experiment in post-conversion 3D. With the movie getting terrible reviews, one issue that keeps popping up is the quality of the converted 3D. Just as with Clash of the Titans, reviewers are saying that 3D is poorly done and ultimately distracts from the film.

To quote one reviewer: "The results are nothing short of disastrous, soaking the color, brightness and clarity out of every frame in exchange for absolutely nothing. Watching the movie with glasses looks virtually identical to watching it without glasses, only the images are murkier and lack fine detail behind the lenses. There are times, indeed, when you can take the glasses off completely and be better off, not even receiving the halo effect that 3-D typically gives off. If one must go to see "The Last Airbender," avoid the 3-D version like the bubonic plague. It represents the absolute nadir of the format, worse and more useless than even back in the days of cardboard glasses with red and blue lenses. Paramount Pictures should be ashamed of themselves."

Once again we are seeing that 3D conversion done in post-production just doesn't work, and is nothing more than a quick cash grab for film studios.

3D can work. It can really add to a film. Just look at Avatar, How To Train Your Dragon, or Toy Story 3. Unfortunately, these films can't be compared to things like Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. We keep seeing time and time again that for 3D to work, it has to be a creative decision from the very beginning of the movie-making process, not an afterthought. The film has to be written, designed, directed, and filmed with 3D in mind, and using 3D cameras. This shoddy post-conversion just doesn't work.

Obviously I am going to be seeing VDT in 2D, the way the film was conceived, shot, and meant to be seen. In the end, 20th Century Fox will probably make more money on VDT by releasing it in 3D than they would have if they had only released it in 2D, but I fear that by the time VDT is released, moviegoers will be tired of these studios passing off quick-fix 3D films as the real deal, and VDT' box office numbers will be hurt as a result.

Some of the reviews for The Last Airbender are quite comical - not so much for the criticism of the 3D effects but for the total lambasting of every single aspect of the film, with the possible exception of the set design!

Still, look on the bright side - given that the image quality in much of the VDT trailer looked overly sharp, garish and cheap looking, a nice grey haze added by the 3D glasses might serve to make things look a little better? The Dark Island might even look dark!

We keep seeing time and time again that for 3D to work, it has to be a creative decision from the very beginning of the movie-making process, not an afterthought. The film has to be written, designed, directed, and filmed with 3D in mind, and using 3D cameras. This shoddy post-conversion just doesn't work.

Obviously I am going to be seeing VDT in 2D, the way the film was conceived, shot, and meant to be seen.

Ah, but I'm not convinced that VDT wasn't conceived to be a 3D film. I've noticed that Ernie Malik is very adept at avoiding questions. When he was asked if VDT was going to be in 3D he didn't say it wouldn't be in 3D, he only said it wasn't shot in 3D. I don't think that 3D was an afterthought by Fox at all. I think the production knew they would do it in 3D and use the post conversion process all along. The shot of Coriakin thowing the map at the audience in the trailer cliched it for me. Why on earth would they have filmed a shot like that if they had never intended VDT to be in 3D?

Except they waited to announce that it was going to be 3D-itized after Avatar came out and was such a hit. Maybe they were always planning on doing the conversion, but I think they were waiting until Avatar came out to see if making VDT 3D would increase the money made.