Part of the reason I oppose it is from a purely moral perspective. As a film student and someone aspiring to work in the industry, I don't want to work in an environment where personal creativity is stifled for the sake of making a few extra bucks. As more and more films are being "post-converted" to 3D, its possible where this precedent of studio power over directorial control becomes widespread.

I feel like anyone who is into film making, or writes, or works with any medium of art would feel this way. How would you like it if you, as a director, spent 2 years of your life on a project, and made the absolute best movie you could, but then the financing studio comes in and says "Hey, what you made is great, but we're going to change it, not to make the movie better, but just to make more money." I know I personally would hate it.

If the director makes the choice to make his or her movie in 3D, as James Cameron did with Avatar, or Martin Scorsese did with his upcoming Hugo Cabaret, then I am 100% behind that decision and would without question see the movie the director intended it to be seen.

I, however, cannot support seeing a movie in 3D when it goes directly against the director's wishes and vision.

People also still don't seem to understand the difference between a film being shot in 3D and converted to 3D in post-production. When a film is shot in 3D, everything from set design to the way shots are set up, to the types of cameras used, to the way the film is shot and edited takes the 3D into account. When you're shooting a film in 3D, you literally cannot shoot certain scenes the way you would if you were shooting in 2D. The result should be spectacular, like what we see with Avatar. When a film is shot in 2D and then converted, it takes none of this into account. They're taking a movie that is meant to be seen in one medium and turning it into a format that is not right for the film. The result of that is the horrid 3D that was seen in Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. It has nothing to do with the time taken to convert the film, and it has nothing to do with "cheesy 3D shots." It's just that from a technical standpoint, the film is meant to be a 2D film. This isn't just me talking, there are countless of people in the industry who know what they are talking about that say the exact same thing.

Sorry for the rant, it's just a topic near to my heart and I tend to get fired up when discussing the issue.

Meh. I hate 3-D films and I think that particular bubble is already bursting in general (3-D trailers get groans from the audience whenever I'm at the theatre). The 3-D glasses don't often fit over actual pairs of glasses and I know too many people who get motion-sickness. If my local theatre is playing the 2-D version on opening day then I will choose to see that. If it's only 3-D I'll still go and I'm sure it'll be "neat" but detract from the overall beauty of the film.

bbkey,
I do understand better what you mean now, thanks for the words. It wasn't a rant!! I do agree that after a movie has been filmed, making a few changes to make it into 3D, is pretty silly. So thank you for helping me to understand better!!

I have never seen a movie in 3D. Well when I was about 5 at Disney Land and saw that Michael Jackson one. But other than that, our theater here in my town (small town) doesnt have a theater that shows 3D. So I will have to drive a hour if I want to see it in 3D. However we will be at my in laws in Chicago and i get to go to it opening night there. So VDT will be my first movie in 3D. Now do you have to buy them in 3D cause I dont want to have to wear glasses everytime i watch it....

I think that since he hadn't wanted it in 3-D the film will be better. They have plenty of time to convert it to 3-D the right way, and it will still be cool in 2-D.

I suppose I'd better clarify. Say that George Lucas had Star Wars redone in 3-D, and had invested enough time and energy to make it almost exactly like a movie filmed in 3-D. It would still be the same movie, and as long as you don't have any problems with the glasses or with motion sickness, I really think your experience would only be improved.

Not all films converted into 3-D in post production look cheesy, as long as they have the time to get the work done. Case in point, G-Force was filmed in 2-D and converted into 3-D. Did any of you who have seen it think it looked any worse than a movie that was filmed in 3-D?

Just wanted to give my two cents.

Although not entirely relevant to VDT, i was very surprised to read just now that the 3D Release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 has been cancelled:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11506354

There may be a slight knock-on effect of more additional 3D screens being available for VDT when the time comes, though its a good 3 week gap between the movies, so it probably won't make too much difference either way - its still going to be all about Tron and VDT when it comes to the battle for 3D screen availability (or lack thereof)

Harry Potter no longer in 3D? That is great news! Now there will be no question as to whether theaters will show HP or VDT on their 3D screens! I know there are a few weeks between release dates, but there is a lot of hype about Potter since this is the beginning of the end of that series and I was a little worried that it might do so well at the box office that there might be a contest come Dec. 10. Now VDT has a full week to reign in 3D without competition.

It would be cool to see it in 3D, but I want to see it in 2D first. This is a really dumb question, but do you have to pay extra to produce a 3D picture?

Even if it will not be as high quality as a movie filmed for 3D, if it makes enough money to continue the series I'm all for it.