I've heard that many more 3-D screens will be added to theaters by the end of the year. Hopefully that will help out.

Yeah, I don't know what Fox is thinking releasing competition to their own movie. I guess there was no where else to put it. And I wonder why it too has to be in 3-D?

I'm not sure if that's how 3D works. I've never heard of creating a 3D effect by using different degrees of curvature on the glasses.

Sorry, I was actually paraphrasing what my brother told me a while ago. It could be that my brother was talking about the polarized lenses, but explaining it to me in a "dummied-down" version.

I saw an article today which made a very interesting point about the plethora of recent 3D announcements which i hadn't yet considered.... Given how many 3D films there are now scheduled to come out at Christmas, how are cinemas going to find a sufficient number of 3D screens to accommodate them all?

I didn't think about that!! I really hope that VDT stays in the theater--the 3D theater, that is--for longer than a week! I think there are a few theaters out there with more than one 3D screen, but, then again, that could be just in some of the more populated places. I know that the theater my family goes to has two or three 3D theaters, along with a special "X-D" theater. I'm not exactly sure what's so special about the "X-D" screen, but that's because I've never seen a movie in it, since it costs more. Let's just hope VDT in 3D doesn't suffer the same fate as Battle For Tera, which was only in the main theaters for one week (then again, that movie was a total flop).

I was talking to my sister in law and she and I were discussing the fact that VotDT is going to be in 3D. she predicted that it would be lame in 3D and I have to agree.....

I didn't like the idea at all at first, but I've gotten used to it... and kinda like the idea! I'll see it 3D on opening weekend.

I'm excited and will definitely be seeing it in 3-D.

In my area, there is an IMAX theater that plays multiple different movies throughout the day. So I know for sure at least one theater in my area won't have the problem of VDT being "kicked out" just because another 3-D movie comes along.

3D movies are getting more and more expensive to see in theaters.....I hope this doesn't make VotDT not bee seen enough, even with everyone seeing it in 2D! argh!

Something I just thought of is, if 3D films do turn out to be just a gimmick or a temporary fad, and not the "future of film making" as some predict, with all the 3D movies being released this year moviegoers may be burned out by all of the 3D films. Most likely it won't effect the gross too much, since the film will presumably also be shown on standard screens as well.

I'm okay with the movie coming out in 3D and will see this movie like 15 times both 2D and 3D since I love the story of VDT. The only thing that will stop me from seeing it that many times is if Caspian frets too much about Susan, which I doubt that.

Also not to be rude but I seriously dont see the point in arguing over the movie coming out in 3D when you also have a selection of 2D

Dont worry, Hakuna Matata

^Hakuna Matata indeed
You do bring up a good point however, if we can see it in 2D we really don't have to worry that much about it. The only potential problem is that it will have a bigger budget (anyone know how much this is going to cost), but it also means we might get better advertising.

I was gonna say something else, but I forgot what I'll edit if I remember.

I've been thinking the whole thing over, and I think I am now pretty comfortable with the idea of VDT being in 3D, even though I originally disliked it. Main reasons I feel good about it:
1 - As many have stated, it wasn't specifically filmed for 3D, so it's not like the story was compromised for a desire to make it 'look cool in 3D' or something like that.
2 - I'm probably going to end up seeing it in both 2D and 3D anyway.
3 - It will probably bring in more money, which is always a good thing.

However, there's still something I'm worried about. What if it works well, everyone loves it, and then they decide to do Silver Chair next - will the idea that it has to be 3D affect the story of SC? Will they feel pressured to out-do what they did with VDT, and therefore miss some of the story elements? Perhaps I'm just worrying about something too far away to consider. But, it's just a thought that dawned on me.

Sadly, I don't go to the movies but I think this is a pretty good idea. They reckon that filmmakers profit more from 3D movies so hopefully that does mean more Narnia movies. However, like Glenstorm says as it will be more expensive less people will want to see it in 3D. I also think it won't be one of those movies you look at and think "Oh, that bit was done for 3D." or "they did it in 3D because of that scene". You understand what I'm trying to say. Right?

I also agree with what Bother Eustace said about the Silver Chair, if it works well they may want to film it in 3D and like I've just mentioned do particular scenes that work well with 3D which can kind of wreck the movie. Those are just my two-cents worth.

I don't buy the argument that less people will see a movie because of the higher prices. Avatar and Alice in Wonderland, the highest grossing film of all time, and the highest grossing of this year respectively were both 3D, so people are obviously seeing these movies. Even if you take away the $3+ from the ticket price, both of these movies have still made monumental amounts.

Today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune newspaper ran a lengthy article about the 3D trend in movies, and it makes some comments that I think are useful here, though it doesn't mention VDT specifically.

- The stampede toward 3D films (counting Avatar as a carryover, 22 3D films are in the works already for this year) is being driven primarily by profit rather than artistic/producer preference (Avatar being a notable exception). Filming a movie in 3D adds about 15% to the budget cost but can generate twice or 3 times the revenue as the same title in 2D (no comments were made here regarding post-production 3D, like VDT).
- Those $3-5 upcharges on 3D ticket prices are credited with much of last year's record ticket sales of $10.6 billion in US and Canada. Seven of last year's biggest movies were in 3D, adding $1.6 billion in revenue. If that's factored out, the income would have shown a decline rather than an increase.
- Another benefit to 3D: the images can't be bootlegged by pirates with video cameras.
- A problem is 3D-enabled theaters: about 3500 screens in North America can handle 3D (less than 10% of the total) - and that's not enough. Movies will be moving off 3D faster than they might in 2D, depending on ticket sales. On the other hand, there's a push to double the number of 3D screens by the end of the year - which should help given VDT's December release.

It also describes the 3D process. Movies are made and projected with 2 images. Each lens of the polarized glasses required allows 1 image through, creating the stereo effect.

The problem is that polarized light is darker/dimmer than regular light, since not all light passes through the polarizing filter. This makes for darker images.

After all is said and done, I'll certainly see VDT in 2D and wait and see what the response to the 3D version is.

As far as theater's not having enough 3D screens:

I think theaters will really be doing their best to add on 3D screens, just as movies are all suddenly switching to 3D-- otherwise they'll miss out on a lot of money.

When Up came out we didn't have it in my city in 3D (or was it only imax 3D?), but by Avatar we had 3D.

Bother Eustace -- yeah, that could be a problem with SC... but if 3D really does become the standard, I think it's kind of inevitable. I guess it's just another dimension of cinematography that's going to prompt directors to fiddle with story lines...

^^ I hope that 3D doesn't become standard with Narnia!