I'm happy the movie will be made into 3D. However, I don't think that I will see it in 3D first - unless someone I know sees it in 3D and really likes it that way.

By the way, can anyone tell me just how 3D technology works? I saw Avatar and thought it to be amazing. What was especially amazing was the little things. You know, like when the tree got destroyed and all the dust came floating down right in front of your face. That was so cool: it was as if you were really there! So, like I said, I am curious on how exactly they can do that? Also, I am curious about how it is possible to make a movie that was not intended for 3D into 3D? At the moment, I can't grasp how that could be possible and not screw up the entire imagery of the film.

Is this Walden Media's first 3D movie?

No, Journey to the Center of the Earth was their first.

Au Contraire, Miss Kitty, Ghosts of the Abyss was Walden's first 3D movie, then Aliens of the Deep. Journey to the Center of the Earth was 3rd. Incidentally, both Ghosts of the Abyss and Aliens of the Deep were James Cameron films. Perhaps since Walden is such good friends with Cameron, he can offer advice about turning VDT into a 3D film?

Hahaha, didn't know those movies were released in 3D. Thought they were IMAX only. Thanks for the correction.

I'm so happy. I love 3D, it's the new age of cinema. Bring on the 3D revolution!!

I'm not thrilled but it's not horrendous either. I'll probably see it 2D first then 3D then 2D a couple more times

This...is...wonderful!!!

Yes! I was so disappointed when I found out that it wasn't going to be in 3D - but now, that it is going to be in 3D, this is AWESOME! As far as marketing goes, this is one of the smartest things that the production can do, in my opinion.

I seriously doubt it will come across as being gimmicky since it was not originally shot in a 3D format. As pogginfan said, 3D now actually enhances the story. I have seen several 3D films over the past year, and I'll tell you, they're some of the best films I've ever seen! So, I am EXTREMELY happy that they have decided to do this - my only wish is that they would have actually shot the film in 3D.

Another thing that is worrying me is the conversion to 3D. I hope it looks really good, otherwise it will severely damage the film.

Also, I will be viewing the movie in 2D the morning of 12.10.10 and again that night.

I don't see why people are upset about it being in 3D. I saw Avatar in 3D and the visuals were just superb...so I'm excited about VODT! I wonder how the fact that it wasn't intended to be a 3D movie will affect it, though. Hopefully it won't just be a gimmick to make more money (knowing Fox, it probably is...).

I nkow it's not going to be gymicky, but I don't much care for the idea of it in 3D.....ugh! this is the last thing I thought they would do with Narnia! *venting, venting*

I'm pretty torn on this. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the fact that it's post-production conversion makes me wonder how it will look overall.

I'll admit to a bit of pouting when I first heard this. I personally don't want to see battles, Dark Island, or Eustace the Dragon in 3D. Yet, I think it could look pretty amazing for the sea, the boat, and the islands.

Seeing Up in 3D last spring really increased my appreciation for that style. There were no parts that involved things flying out of the screen and the world simply looked richer. If VDT looks like that, I'll be quite pleased and see it that way (second viewing though), if not, I'll have to pass.

I'm not thrilled but it's not horrendous either. I'll probably see it 2D first then 3D then 2D a couple more times

This is why I think it was a good move for the studio. We all know that anyone really interested in the movies is going to want to see it both ways. And they aren't alienating anyone since there are still 2-D options.
And it does seem like releasing a 2-D movie during a wave of 3-D's is akin to releasing a silent movie when talkies were becoming popular! I think the studio just wants to keep up with the times.

^that's probably true. Well at least 2D is still an option. They knew they'd be getting more money if they had more options on how to view the movie, and they're more than likely right...

extremely excited that VDT is coming to 3D! unlike Avatar and Burton's Alice in Wonderland, at least VDT was written and is based on a solid, compelling tale that has been proven by time. so long as they didnt reinvent the wheel in this (and from what we've been hearing and seeing they didnt), storywise VDT cant miss. thats whats gotten me so excited, that for the first time there will be a timeless tale that would maximize the power of cinematic storytelling with the use of 3D (and even better IMAX 3D! ) i was wondering if The Hobbit will be the first tale that will attempt this but i'm totally jazzed that i need only wait till the end of the year to see this accomplished with Narnia. true, full scale 3D conversion is in its infancy, and still has a lot of room for improvement, but with each step, storytelling techniques get better which benefits new tales, classic tales and even older movies that will undoubtedly get re-released with the 3D treatment. so imagine the magic of LWW in 3D! the river battle in PC! (imagine that being in 4D with water being occasionally sprayed at you )

i understand that 3D isnt for everybody, and thats sad. but to purposely keep a classic tale away from new storytelling techniques, deeming it "too precious" is the first step to killing the mythology. stories are meant to be shared, not locked up. techniques on sharing stories improves over time, it has to, otherwise it would be too archaic for anyone to even care about or relate to. a shame if the story has such precious gems that would benefit the audience.

By the way, can anyone tell me just how 3D technology works? I saw Avatar and thought it to be amazing. What was especially amazing was the little things. You know, like when the tree got destroyed and all the dust came floating down right in front of your face. That was so cool: it was as if you were really there! So, like I said, I am curious on how exactly they can do that? Also, I am curious about how it is possible to make a movie that was not intended for 3D into 3D? At the moment, I can't grasp how that could be possible and not screw up the entire imagery of the film.

Whatziznehm, I explained how 3D technology works in my previous comment on page 3. I'm not going to rewrite it all, so I suggest you refer back to my other comment. As to how they convert a 2D movie made for 2D into 3D, I'm not sure. I can look it up, though. And I'm guessing that it'll be ten times easier since they filmed it digitally, rather than with 35mm film.

There is a new poll on the homepage (bottom-right corner) asking NarniaWebbers to rate this decision on a scale of 1 to 5. Vote now!

There is no doubt in my mind that my first viewing will be in 2D. That is the movie that Michael Apted made. The 3D version will just be a distorted version of that vision.

I don't see why people are upset about it being in 3D. I saw Avatar in 3D and the visuals were just superb...

Totally different. With Avatar, the decision was made long before they started shooting that the movie would be released in 3D. They actually shot it with cameras built specifically for the movie. I believe James Cameron conceived the project from the very beginning to be in 3D. This is not the case with Dawn Treader. The decision was made after the shoot. This is almost certainly a commercial decision, unlike Avatar where it was an artistic decision.

James Cameron used 3D the way some directors use lighting. It fundamentally affected his choices of how to compose shots. With VDT, Apted shot it for 2D, and now it is being changed to 3D. It's a distorted vision.

My fear is that it may not be too late to change and throw junk at the screen. They are still right in the middle of post-production. Also, does this mean they will have less time to finish the movie? They'll need to finish the movie and still have enough time to convert it to 3D.