Originally Posted by Jonwo:
“Some films while not filmed in 3D are designed and shot with 3D conversion in mind so the result turns out better compared to films that were shot in 2D then converted into 3D at a later stage although there are exception like Titanic and the various Disney and Pixar films. Lion King and Beauty and the Beast were pretty good in 3D and proves you could have a 3D traditional animation film”
Truer words never spoken. And you can usually tell when something has been conceived with 3-D in mind (like the aforementioned CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER,
et al), and when they really,
really haven't (the aforementioned HYBRID,
et al).
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“If I like a film then I'll check out the 3D version in the home later on, but in the cinema it's the difference between the £5 I've spent on a 2D ticket via my workplace, and £10 or so for it in 3D.”
Yes, the price difference for theatrical screenings (not to mention the price difference between 2-D and 3-D versions of the corresponding Blu-rays) can be a deal-breaker. Thank gawd for rental services, that's all I can say!
Oddly enough, I had an opportunity to see two tentpole 3-D conversions over the last few days - STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS and IRON MAN THREE (both on Blu-ray). I understand the director really wasn't keen to do 3-D on the former, but it actually looks better than in the latter, even though neither film really takes advantage of the process, except in a couple of eye-opening scenes (such as the one in IMT when our hero tries to rescue a group of people plunging to their doom from an exploding plane -
don't look down!!! 
). There are very few 21st century equivalents of HOUSE OF WAX or FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN, that's fer sure...
