I'm quite excited about this. I enjoy the 3D effect! And, unlike with "Avatar" where I think the technology kind of distracted from the plot (what little plot there was) I reckon VDT will probably be a bit more like "Up", where I found the 3D to be nice and subtle, helping the story rather than taking away from it. I think it could be really cool!

Hey - this might mean a 3D trailer in front of another 3D film!

VDT in 3D works for me. I personally will not see it in 3D because I get headaches, and all that water might be a bit too much for my motion sickness (you wanted to hear all about that didn't you? ).
A 3D release will most likely insure a higher profit, so I'm for the idea. I won't watch it, but if everyone else does it will be worth it.

PP, think of it in layers. In 2D everything is on the same layer. In 3D there are multiple layers for everything to be on. Some of the obvious 3D shots make it look like something is coming out of the screen towards the viewer. Basically, if it's done really well, 3D movies make it look like you're actually there. Sort of like how surround sound makes it sound like you're actually there.

can one person watch the movie in 3D with glasses and the person next to them watch it in 2D?

I don't think so. If you watch a 3D movie without the glasses it messes with the colors. The 2D and 3D versions will play on separate screens at the theater.

Your not an idiot Pattertwigs Pal! With all the talk of 2D, 3D, and even 4D it can all get really confusing!

Thanks!
And thanks to everyone who answered my questions.

I'm not sure which way I'll see it. I'm leaning to 2D since I tend to get dizzy easily (although I'm fine on roller coasters). Shows in Imax theaters are hard for me sometimes. I don't want to have to spend a lot of time with my eyes closed the first time I see VDT.

movies in 3D aren't, in my opinion, that amazing because the colors are all weird and it makes the movie look sort of blueish redish.....ugh. but hey, if Narnia gets money, then we have a good chance of seeing the other Narnia books get made into movies! 3D for VotDT could either make or break it's chnace of being a good movie. let's hope it does well!

can one person watch the movie in 3D with glasses and the person next to them watch it in 2D?

No you can not. Two separate images are projected onto the screen and the glasses will merge them together in such a way that it appears to be 3D.

I've only seen one 3D movie (last summer). Apparently people can get sick watching it, but I didn't. I'm personally very excited to see this in 3D because of various scenes which sound like they are going to be pretty good (like the painting in the bedroom). I just don't want to see stuff flying at me, that's all.

Edit: When I took my glasses off while watching the 3D movie, I could see the images most of the time but they were quite fuzzy.

I'm glad it will be coming out in 2D, though. I'd hate to have to wear the glasses whenever I watch VDT.

Question: could this mean that it may take longer for a trailer to come out, considering the shots now have to all be converted to 3D, and they must have just made this decision? I had to ask

^^ 3D trailer, eh? well that sounds cool.....

Personal preference only, I wont see VDT in 3D. I generally wont go see a movie in 3D; went to see Avatar ... can't remember if it was 3D or not. Slept through a good portion of it. 3D effect is simply quite the irritant for me.

Given that they shot the movie in Digital, will that make the the 3D conversion processes quicker/cheaper/better than if they had shot it on film?

Anyone know? I would assume the answer to all three would be "yes"?

I know a lot of people have complained about the relative poor quality of post-prod 3D conversion (when compared to movies actually shot in 3D) but surely the digital should at least go some way to ensuring that VDT's converted 3D looks slightly better than the other converted films coming out in the coming months that were only shot on film?

Ok, I was thinking and maybe it's just me. I've been to a lot of 3D movies, before Avatar I saw them all in the normal theater in normal 3D. Then I saw Avatar in IMAX and it was awesome!!(I’m really disappointed that Clash of the Titans isn’t in IMAX! )
I told myself if I was going to see a 3D movie it was going to be in IMAX
I also saw Alice in Wonderland in IMAX the first time and again the 3D was great. When I saw it the second time it was sold out in IMAX so I saw it in normal 3D, the difference was huge in my opinion. I feel like the 3D in IMAX comes out way closer to you then the normal 3D does.
So if VDT comes out in IMAX 3D, I may change my mind and see it the first time in 3D, only in IMAX 3D though.
So I was wondering has anyone else felt the same way about IMAX 3D? I think VDT would look really, really, good with IMAX!!!!

I wrote this just before the announcement for 3D was made but I wasn't able to post it until now. My concerns are still legitimate though:

"For me it all depends on whether or not converting to 3D will mean that they'll have to cut short their post-production on the film. If they can send individual scenes off to be converted to 3D, then it won't be so bad, but if they have to finish the entire film 3 months earlier in order to send it off the to 3D converting studios, then I am totally against it. I don't want this movie to be rushed.

"Personally, I was impressed by Alice in Wonderland's 3D and I was surprised to find it wasn't shot in 3D but was converted in post. I like the added depth of the film, and since it was shot in 2D, we didn't get any gimickey parts where stuff was thrown at the audience. (Except for a croquet hedgehog, but I'll forgive that.)

"I am concerned though about the budget though. In order to make this movie 3D they'll either have to reserve more of their already-small budget for 3D conversion, or else FOX will have to sink an extra 15 million dollars into the movie (assuming a 150 minute running time). I don't like either option. The reason I don't like the first option is obvious, we don't want the quality of the film to go down, the reason I don't like the second is because the measure of success is determined by the amount of returns, which is in turn determined by how much they spent in the first place. PC cost more than LWW but made less, so it was considered a flop, even though they still made plenty of money off of the film. When smaller budget films make a lot of money, studios get interested. Although the potential for making more money off of 3D is there, the potential of a bigger flop is there also. So at this point I almost wonder if they should play it safe and stay with 2D. Although, on the other hand, I'd hate for VDT to "miss the boat" and release in 2D during a Christmas season full of 3D movies.

"I will say though, that if the visuals are as stunning as I hope they will be, then a 3D Dawn Treader will be like icing on the cake!"

I'm glad to hear that VDT will be in 3D, but I'll be seeing the 2D version first, thank you very much.

Not thrilled. Financially I understand the studios decision, and it makes sense; VDT will undoubtedly make more money due to its 3D release. From a personal and creative standpoint, I am very much against this.

I just don't like the idea of studios going in and meddling with these films in post-production for the sake of making money. I can't say how Michael Apted feels about this, but I would hope that he supports the decision and it wasn't made by the studio alone without his input. Regardless, the movie was designed to be a 2D film, which is the way I will see it.

I am still not convinced that post-production conversion is the best way either. Its true that Alice in Wonderland was converted to 3D in post, but that was a decision made from the start, and the whole production and filming of the movie was done with the fact that the movie would be in 3D in mind. Early reports for Clash of the Titans, which is truly the first 2D movie to be released with a 3D conversion, state that the 3D effects look cheap and not nearly at the quality of films that are filmed with 3D cameras, or shot for 3D, like Avatar and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Hopefully once VDT roles around, the technology will be at the level where the 3D won't cheapen and hurt the visual quality of the film.

I don't know what to think I most likely won't see it in 3D.

Yeah, if it ends up looking silly, that'll be terrible. But, from what we've heard so far, it seems like the filmmakers realize there is a lot at stake and are being very careful... I don't think they would ruin everything they've done so far by making the 3D look last-minute and just-because if they can help it.

If done right, I think VDT could be gorgeous in 3D -- it has such potential to be a beautiful film as it is, and 3D could really make it breath-taking... in which case people who wouldn't see it for the story might see it for the visuals.

I'm not really either way. I don't really like 3D, but I don't hate it. I'll have to see Alice in Wonderland to see what kind of 3D it has before I make a definite choice.

What's definite is that I'm going to see it in 2D, though.