[HKMk23]

I’ve heard scuttlebutt about some films advertised as “3D” not being 3D for their entire length; only for long enough to get viewers absorbed in the action, then the 3D effects are dispensed with for the balance of the film.

Any truth to it, as far as you know?

[Tax-chick]

Tom says the one he saw was 3D all the way through.

[Dead Corpse]

Any truth to it, as far as you know?

First I've heard of it. I'm ok with the 3D if it adds something to the film. Alice in Wonderland was pretty good, but others have kind of sucked.

I can't Thor being one of those films that would benefit...

[sionnsar]

I’ve heard scuttlebutt about some films advertised as “3D” not being 3D for their entire length; only for long enough to get viewers absorbed in the action, then the 3D effects are dispensed with for the balance of the film.

Not my experience, so far. Although "Avatar" came close -- 3D took a back seat to the story, even with the 3D viewing following airline seatback viewing (followed by viewing on new cellphone -- what the heck, it came on the phone and I had hours to kill on a flight).

But they seem to be getting more "responsible" with 3D now with less "let's throw stuff into the audience's face" and more "let's make it look 3D". "Dawn Treader 3D" was like that, though it would probably be as good in 2D. I think we saw "Tangled" in 3D but I don't really recall.