I'm not so upset as I would have been had I not seen both Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D IMAX. However, I will say that Alice was not as impressive, and was harder on my eyes (though that could have been because it was 11:45pm). Unless friends convince me otherwise, I'll probably see VODT in 2D first and then 3D. And then probably 2D again, unless the 3D blows me away.

I'm still waiting for them to figure out a way to show 3D without those stupid glasses. I hate that I can't lean my head to the side without it becoming blurry. I always lean my head to the side, it's how I watch movies!

I don't really know. I don't want to see it in 3D, but I don't have a strong opinion anymore. I used to dislike the idea, but in the past few hours I have kind of warmed up to the idea.

When the rumors were first circulating, I remember strongly disapproving of VDT being a 3D film. My opinion has changed now. After seeing all the hype surrounding 3D films lately, I think it will be a boost financially for VDT. And I won't mind seeing it in 3D myself, now that I've realized that 3D could actually enhance the storytelling rather than injure it. If there's a Narnia film that should be done in 3D, I think VDT would benefit the most from it. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 3D!

I found Avatar to be visually interesting and well done but the rest of the movie was beyond bland. I'm not a lover of 3D. It's fine for short films at amusement parks but otherwise, it's just a gimmick. I'm not happy that VDT is going to be a 3D movie (not just because of the gimmick thing but because it adds many additional costs that VDT can't afford to mess with). That said, I watched Alice in Wonderland in 2D (it was made for 2D and transferred to 3D in post-production). I'll be watching VDT in 2D.

Overall I'm happy about this, it will attract more viewers, which we definitly need after the lack of profits on PC. The only problem that comes to mind is that it will enlarge the budget, but hopefully the gains will outwiegh the losses. I'll probably see it twice, the first time in 2-D because thats what I'm used to and its how I've been imagining it, but maybe a week or two after I'll see it in 3-D. I haven't seen many 3-D movies recently, but after Avatar it seems like they've been really good. I'm definitly seeing it in 2-D first, this way I won't have to worry about the 3-D affecting my liking of it, and also 3-D tends to give me a headache.

Tickets for 3D movies cost far more than tickets for 2D movies. I don't see this as an intelligent decision. Less people are likely to go because of the high ticket prices.

Tickets for 3D movies cost far more than tickets for 2D movies. I don't see this as an intelligent decision. Less people are likely to go because of the high ticket prices.

I agree that some people I think won't see it in 3D because of the money , but there are those who will be willing to spend the money and since it will be both 2D and 3D, anyone who sees it in 3D will just be bonus cash for Fox/Walden and those who wanted to see it in 2D can still see it. So I don't think it will hurt VDT in anyway, but that's just my opinion

Ugh, this whole issue is frustrating me...

I'm not pleased with the direction studios are going with this. I have yet to hear anything good about the look of these post-production conversion films. Michael Bay of all directors is fighting it, as Paramount wants Transformers 3 to be in 3D. Bay looked into the possibility of shooting the film in 3D, but ultimately found the cameras too impractical and bulky for the film he wants to shoot, and decided to shoot the film in 2D. He sent in footage of Transformers 2 to be converted to 3D and see how that worked out. His thoughts: "...honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process. … I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them. Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks...This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not." (source, www.slashfilm.com)

I know I seem to be taking this a bit far, but as someone who wants to direct films one day, I hate the idea of studios doing this and forcing this onto directors. If someone like Michael Bay, who is the king of gimmicks, is against 3D conversion, that has to tell you something...

I would rather they keep it in 2D....but I will watch it in 3D. I think they should leave it as is to keep the feeling of the movie. Just because there are other movies in 3D...doesnt mean every movie should be...just my 2 cents!!

I'm very excited about this and would love to watch it in 3D! Unfortunately there are no 3D-equipped theaters around here...

- DP Miley

Hmm, there are many different opinions about this. At first, when we heard all of the rumors about it, I wasn't too sold on it. Now, I think I like the idea, but only under certain conditions. As long as there are no cheap 3D tricks (which is very unlikely, considering that VDT has already been shot ), the conversion process is done right, and it doesn't damage the budget, I think it'll be fine. I almost wonder if it being shot digitally will help with the conversion process, making it less likely to be messed up. Who knows?

Since there has been a little bit of confusion over what 3D really means, I'll include what I wrote as my comment on the movie news page:

"It sounds to me like there are two distinct opinions about this: either you hate it or you love it. It also sounds to me like a lot of the people that have something against 3D either haven’t seen a 3D movie for a while or had some bad experience with it, i.e. getting a headache or something. So let me clear something up for those people. 3D movies have changed drastically in the last few years. They are no longer the dorky movies that have stuff shooting out at you to awe the audience (although a few movies still throw those tricks in once in a while). The technology has gotten a lot better, making it so that the audience feels more like they are experiencing the movie, rather than just watching it. And let me explain how 3D works. One person (I can’t remember who) mentioned that when they took the glasses off, nothing looked really different. That was because the movie was not shot as a 3D movie; instead, it was converted later. A movie that is made for 3D is shot at two slightly different angles, imitating the way our eyes work. Those two different images are then superimposed on top of each other. The glasses are made so that one lense pops inward slightly, while the other pops outward, changing the way your eyes see the image. One eye will see one part of the image, while the other eye sees the other. Your brain takes care of the rest, just as it does in everyday life, making the image look 3D. If you were to take off your glasses while watching a movie shot in 3D, you will notice that the image looks slightly blurry. That is the two images at different angles put on top of each other. That is also why several people get headaches while watching 3D movies: the glasses are making their eyes focus in an unnatural and uncomfortable way.

"I guess what I’m trying to say is that 3D isn’t as horrible as some people think. While I’m not a big fan of cheap 3D tricks, I do love to watch a good 3D movie. For example, I saw Up! in 3D, and while they didn’t throw in any cheap 3D tricks, every shot was absolutely breath-taking. There was one shot that showed hills and clouds in the distance, and I had to double check to remind myself that I was watching a movie, and not looking out an airplane window. So before you completely shoot down the possibility of watching Narnia in 3D, I would try it out first. You might find yourself blown away."

I saw 'Avatar' in 3D and it didn't blow me away. I doubt VDT in 3D would change my opinion. 3D really is just a gimmick.

I'm guessing the decision may have been floated as a possibility so they may have budgeted for it back when they were planning. If not, the studio obviously feels it is a good enough risk to sink the extra money into. So hopefully that's a good sign for the movie overall.

The last 3D movie I watched was an IMAX at Kennedy Space Center and it was very small as it was old footage. It was well done especially due to the age and quality of the footage (1960s). I just can't handle the motion on a full size image. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Is this Walden Media's first 3D movie?

Anyways, I'm happy that it's in 3D, but I'll watch it in 2D. 3D is more expensive and I was never a big fan of it.

I'm wondering if the fact that 3D tickets cost more will add to the profits, or will the cost of making the movie into 3D make the profits about the same?

When I read the article about VDT being in 3D I was like 'Why? The other Narnia films were good and they weren't in 3D!" I hope that there is a 2D version as I don't like to watch movies in 3D becuase the picture is somewhat distorted and the color fades. It also gives me a headache.

I think this 3D thing is all a fad and that they should make both types of the film (2D and 3D) in order to please both audiences.

Since cost most likely is a factor though, I think they should make the 2D film first (as that is the orginal) and that is what I will be seeing.

Artistic wise, could a movie that was originally shot in 2D be distorted when rendered in 3D? I think even though 3D is popular right now that overall I think most poeple will see the 2D as I hear the tickets are more expensive for 3D and only certian theaters can show them.