Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

AICN Exclusive: IRON MAN 2 in 3D?!?! & IRON MAN 1 too?!?!?

Hey folks, Harry here with a story of geekgasmic fury bridled with awesome euphoria! One birdy tweeted a secret tweet that put me on the scent - and then I found other birdies to sing the same tune. So I can state that the following is absolutely true, though the final results have yet to be heard. Right now, there is a 1 minute demo of IRON MAN 2 converted to high quality digital 3D. I'm told this one minute is totally like Kim Basinger & Mickey Rourke in 9 1/2 WEEKS. HOT! Crazy Hot! Right now the Suits at Marvel & Paramount & now also Disney are considering this 1 minute. At the same time that this is happening, they are fishing for bids with 3 different companies to see what the cost and time it would take to convert IRON MAN 2 to a complete 3D film. This same process is being done to Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND - but if this comes to pass. What will this mean for the rest of Marvel's slate leading to THE AVENGERS? Will THOR & CAPTAIN AMERICA also go through this process? Or will they be shot from the get go in 3D? I hope so. I love 3D. The tests I've seen of this process are just jaw-dropping. 3D is an experience to experience in movie theaters - and when the high quality progressive frame 3D Blu-Rays hit that will finally put the nail in the coffin of those dreadful anaglyph relics of the 50s... You'll have a home entertainment experience to match. Watching Iron Man, Whiplash, War Machine and Black Widow in 3D would be an unbelievable experience next summer - and my little birdy tells me there's a chance they'll actually pony up to convert IRON MAN for a reissue in advance of IRON MAN 2's summer release. I have very solid sources on this. And remember, you heard it here first my friends! Are you ready for the armored avenger in 3D? I am.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:30 p.m. CST


    by lockesbrokenleg


  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:31 p.m. CST


    by AJD_1

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:34 p.m. CST

    Disney gonna CAPTAIN EO that noise?


    3-D is cool, but I sense 3-D overkill already. Leave ore-existing franchises like IRON MAN alone I say.

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:35 p.m. CST

    One minute?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    How much can you show in one minute?

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Spelling error on my part


    I meant "PRE-existing"

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    SONY is going after home 3D

    by Randy Sims

    and hopes to have the first in home 3D HD TVs on the market sometime in 2010. Now we can have a new format war (and I still haven't caught up with Blu Ray yet...)

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    3D fad reaching the 14 minute mark

    by Dwide Shrewd

    So fucking overrated. It's probably just an excuse to keep jacking up the prices at the box office.

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST


    by lfhlaw

    Some stories i think lend themselves to 3-D. maybe like Final destination or UP! , but the glasses IMO are still gimmicky and then the theatres charge more for the show because it's in 3-D. and as lockesbrokenleg says...It just tires out my eyes especially having to wear it for 2+ hrs.

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:40 p.m. CST


    by blahblahblahblahblah

    Am I the only one who can't stand everything coming out in 3D lately? It looks like shit. Hardly better than the fucking red/blue glasses 50 years ago. When will this shitty fad be over?

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Fuck 3d- D-BOX is where its at!

    by Particularly Hard Vato

    D-BOX is what needs to go in to theaters. Seats are awesome.

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:41 p.m. CST


    by eggers

    I remember seeing Nightmare Before Christmas 3D and wasn't all that impressed, the Pixar short before much better. They should stick to filming in 3D if they want good 3D.

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Was Iron Man 2 even filmed in HD?

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I don't know if the first one was, but if they have to convert anything, won't it be grainy and shit?

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:45 p.m. CST

    Love it, as long as the movie is good.

    by Rene_Belloq_12inch_Figure

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:54 p.m. CST



    no it won't be grainy and shit.

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Gimmicks like 3D are lame.

    by kdoc13

    3D adds nothing to the story, and in fact usually takes away from it. Here, let me lob a grape at the camera, look how cool it is to see something coming right at you? Isn't that awesome, ok, no I've used 3D, let me get back to my story. The only place where 3D usually works well, is horror movies, and even then it's lame. Seriously, did you need 3D when you were a kid to imagine being in the X Wing Fighter going through the trench in the Death Star with the lasers coming right at you? Hell no. In LA, I've seen 3D shots of movies like Toy Story that were originally 2D and made 3D. It does nothing to improve on the original or add to the story. 3D is the Spice Girls of film, it's a gimmick and it's lame. Can't I just get a quality movie instead?

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:55 p.m. CST

    This...could be cool!

    by Jobacca

    As long as the 3-D isnt gimmicky and the films can stand on their own without it,it might be kind of cool to see Iron Man and friends flying around in glorious Johhny LaRue 3-D.....

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:58 p.m. CST

    All about seeing Black Widow in curvaceous 3D

    by BrashHulk

    Scarlett's got plenty o' parts that jut out nicely

  • Sept. 1, 2009, 11:59 p.m. CST

    haha. I hope not

    by lockesbrokenleg

    I thought the Avatar thing was pretty kick ass.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:03 a.m. CST

    3D didn't save movies from crashing back in the 60s

    by Professor_Monster

    and it won't now. cheap gimmicks can't clear the air of the bad cinema that's out there.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Not 3D but...

    by Director91

    This should be shown in IMAX theaters..not conVerted into 3D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Will it look as good as AVATAR?

    by Mr_SugarPants

    I sure hope so. Saw 16 min preview. That shit looked crazy son. If every blockbuster looked like that, I'd definitely be back in theaters more often.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Fuck IRON MAN. You know what should be in 3D?!

    by Mr_SugarPants


  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Harry, I thought you were quitting...

    by BoE

    I recall you were in heavy sulk mode after the crap reception for Avatar Day..."so distasteful to you love of film" wasn't it? What happened with that? You find the strength to carry on in a bucket of nutter butters?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:22 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    See subject line.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:28 a.m. CST

    People who get out...

    by BoE

    on occasion tend to be unimpressed with 3D. The thing about 3D is...wait for it...reality is 3D! Seriously - check it out. Turn your puffy glazed eyes away from the monitor for a minute. Now take the hostess snack cake in your hand and hold it up at arms length. Focus on the delicious pastry. Now lower your arm. Repeat...see? Weird, right?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:29 a.m. CST

    Movies in 3D is no longer news

    by jimmy_009

    I wish everyone would quit making a big deal of it. If you're going to do it in 3D fine, but I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. It's no longer a novelty.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Paying Good Money for a Headache

    by SoupBack

    Fuck that.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:30 a.m. CST


    by lockesbrokenleg

    The guy on AICN is making fun of guys on AICN. Probably thinks Olivia Munn is a comedy genius.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:30 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    That was one funny ass post.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:31 a.m. CST

    3D and IMAX: The return of the 1950s gimmicks

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    ...because it worked so well back then. <p>I hope the next big thing is 3-D SuperIMAX with a screen as tall as a Cinemascope frame is wide. The first film in this format: a remake of Hitchcock's Vertigo starring the head of Harrison Ford on a totally CG body.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:31 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Fuck is wrong with your funny gene Lockes?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:33 a.m. CST

    3D not gimmick

    by cloudrider`

    i've said it once, i'll say it again for the nimrods out there. if kurosawa/truffaut/fellini/hitchcock's films are fine in black n white, and lang and chaplin did fine without sound, then why the hell are we wathing movies in color, with people blabbering nonsense to each other now??? <p> sound --> color --> 3D. film is a medium that tries to imitate life at best it could. after sound and color, perception of depth is most absolutely the next evolution in the medium. it's not just about things 'poking' at you, it can be more in the hands of capable filmmakers. someone like cuaron already expressed interest in using 3D to do low budget drama. it's a new tool. let's see where it could take us. small minds only see what is(3D is a gimmick! gimmick i telya!), great minds see what can be. guess which kind advances civilization and which kind just sucks their thumbs.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:33 a.m. CST

    Thanks - much appreciated

    by BoE

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST


    by lockesbrokenleg

    but laughing at her "jokes" isn't one of them.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    I thought UP was a great movie, oh and I saw it in 3D

    by Pitofbenders

    and was just cool to see it that way. The movie alone was great, but it's just fun to see stuff in 3D. If the story is shit who gives a fuck if it's in 3D, the story is still shit. But I LOVED Iron Man, so seeing the second one in 3D should be pretty damn cool IMHO

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:35 a.m. CST

    FACT: 3-D is a gimmick

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Anybody who thinks otherwise is a liar and a troll.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:36 a.m. CST

    cloudrider, nicely put

    by Pitofbenders

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Will 3-D improve the shittyness

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    of Iron Man's ending?!?!?!?!?!?!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:39 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    But if your timing is off, you'll be dedicating that pud to Kevin Pereira. Be careful out there.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:39 a.m. CST

    you heard about panasonic making 3D tv?

    by cloudrider`

    soon you'll be able to watch porn in 3D at home. be grateful for that. save you the hassle of going outside trying to hook up with someone from a comic con.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:40 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    are the spiritual successors to Seven Samurai!!!!!!!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:43 a.m. CST

    I would totally watch a 3D Seven Samurai remake.

    by Toilet_Terror

    I'm not kidding. I would.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:46 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    It's like a house of horrors in this here talkback.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:51 a.m. CST

    every now and again


    Heavy negativity gets me down like it would a normal human being. The reaction to the AVATAR trailer was one of those days. I've come to expect it over time here at AICN, but as always, I will work for and on AICN till I die. Which depending on the ghoulishness of the given talkbacker, I'm probably not far off from. However, my doctor would disagree.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:53 a.m. CST


    by BoE

    I'm with BSB on this - wtf are you talking about? Granted, you've chosen choudrider and toilet_terror for usernames (instant icebreaker with the ladies, I imagine) so I'm guessing you're sadder and lonelier than your average nerds...but come on. Maybe now would be a good time for you both to go stare in the mirror for awhile and sob quietly.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:54 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Considering you own the domain name and shit.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:57 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Plant-based diet. <P> We wanna torment you for a long time to cum.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Great scoop Harry.

    by hallmitchell

    I remember Jon saying he was thinking about this then dismissed it. What changed? Was it AVATAR?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:58 a.m. CST

    4d is the wave of the future

    by Spazatronik2000

    3d will hurt it's box office. I called it first.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1 a.m. CST

    MMMMM - Marvel CIVIL WAR in glorious 3D

    by DoogieHowitzer

    Just read that bitch for the first time - what a fantastic series of films that would make....especially if PIXAR just did them all concurrently as animated 3D. Imagine releasing a new chapter of CIVIL WAR every few months....Spidey...IronMan....Fantastic4...Daredevil....CaptainAmerica

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:04 a.m. CST

    I had chili for lunch in 3D. It sucked!

    by Godovhellfire

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    With brunette Sienna Miller!!!!!!!!! Talk about glorious!!!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Is there even enough unspoiled terrain left in Japan

    by Toilet_Terror

    to shoot a Seven Samurai remake?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:08 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    I shouldn't be up at this hour.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:09 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Just like every other damned movie.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:10 a.m. CST


    by 2LeggedFreak

    The Favreau interview in SFX this month moots the possibility of an Iron Man 2 film in 3 D but Mr F says that since the film wasn't shot digitally its a non starter.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:10 a.m. CST

    3D has several drawbacks yet.

    by Toilet_Terror

    1. Glasses 2. Resolution 3. Framerates <p>These are real problems. I can see the tide of 3D features falling back into a niche, but I really like it anyway. UP and Coraline in 3D were fantastic. Avatar is next for me, but I'm not much excited by the trailer.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Yes, but does it have blue smurfs ?

    by Se7en

    Juz askin'.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Looking forward to Scott Pilgrim

    by Toilet_Terror

    At last a film shot in Canada that is actually set there.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:12 a.m. CST

    and is Mickey in it ?

    by Se7en

    Juz askin again.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:12 a.m. CST

    It's not negative to say that 3D makes one

    by Dingbatty

    feel cross eyed and headache-y. The 3D in Coraline was a neat trick, but only that, and only in moments. Most of the time it made the image look flat, like floating paper dolls.<p>Now, head tracking -- that is impressive -- but can only work with one viewer:<p>

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:15 a.m. CST

    Dingbatty - that wasn't my experience at all

    by Toilet_Terror

    but I will note that it's not for everyone.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:16 a.m. CST

    if there's a more thick skinned geek than harry...

    by cloudrider`

    i've never met him. it takes a small man to hurl insults behind stupid anonymous id. it takes a bigger man to take all those in and still refuse to stoop to their level, after all these years. i know why you're fat, harry. :)

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:16 a.m. CST

    I like how they try to fool people after RealD

    by Dingbatty

    movies into thinking that the company is really concerned about recycling, and would you please put the glasses in the bin. Give me a break! They just don't want you paying for something else and then sneaking into a RealD movie, later on.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Harry, as long as you're on...

    by BoE

    admit that you found the 16 minute Avatar preview disappointing. C'mon - Cameron's not reading this tb, no one will say anything. Just be honest - those big goofy cat things are lame, right?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Not everyone has perfect vision required

    by Dingbatty

    for 3D movies.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST

    I wish 70mm would return.

    by Toilet_Terror

    Digital 3D for the digital movies, 70mm for films. The industry is already splitting itself apart, may as well formalize it.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:23 a.m. CST

    3D Blu-Rays!??

    by 69DUDE

    Waaaa!!! Everyone knows downloads are the future!! Waaaa!!! Yeah, right....720p, 5.1 sound, no extra features, no second-hand market, no sharing with friends.....all at the same high price!!!! Anyone who advocates movie downloads is a fucking cocksucker, a retard of immeasurable proportions, and gullible in the extreme.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST

    If you look at the YouTube channel of the

    by Dingbatty

    guy whose video I posted a link to, you'll see a vid for another program he is working on for auto projector calibration that is really fucking cool and useful.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST


    by BoE

    You make several good points - agree with all of them. 3D has been with us forever; I still find it to be a distraction. When the effect works, it still looks like you are staring into a diorama. Nerds who get amped up about 3d are really just looking for something to talk about. I do know people who can't enjoy the effect because they have mild vision problems and I've had several friends complain of headaches - but who cares as long as the fanboys have something to chatter about (wait until they discover sex). Oh, also, I agree on head tracking - that is cool.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:30 a.m. CST

    I don't get the appeal of head-tracking.

    by Toilet_Terror

    The screen isn't moving with your head.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:32 a.m. CST



    I have been comeing here for years now, and we have a lot in common it seems when it comes to the films we like, but here and there you say things that flanerghast me, 3D SUCKS! its a gimik and its killing cinema, and i'm not just saying that because i have a SLIGHT lazy eye and cannot see 3d movies:P and i am sure there are millions more like me that also can't see it so all 3D does is serve to piss us off and alienate people.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:34 a.m. CST

    How does it alienate you?

    by Toilet_Terror

    The films still play on 2D screens as well, if you haven't noticed. Did color-blind people shriek about The Wizard of Oz alienating them?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Um, hey have 3D DVDs out there

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Yaah, most of them are just roller coaster shit, but can you imagine watching Star Wars in 3D at home?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:35 a.m. CST

    i see...

    by cloudrider`

    some people have mild vision, so fuck 3D and those who enjoy it. but hey, some people are blind and deaf too, so fuck movies in general, right? <p> it's a choice, dude. you're blind you listen to music and stay away from movies. you have headache and bad vision, you stick to regular screening, and stay away from 3D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:47 a.m. CST

    I wonder if 10 years from now when 3D is as

    by southafricanguy

    common place as the use of sound, color et,in film if these same people will still be here repeating the same sctick. As if doing so will change reality, will somehow stop film evolving as a visual medium. You know? Like it always has. Its cool if you dont like it, hey some people I have met only like old black and white movies, but repeating the same shit "its a gimmick" isnt going to make it go away, or make your opinion fact.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    A regular screening isn't a complete viewing

    by Dingbatty

    experience if the emphasis is on the 3D effects, a la Coraline. I've no problem with the concept of 3D, but the implementation of it, and the exclusivity.<p>By your reasoning, filmmakers shouldn't bother with closed captioning and subtitles, because the deaf should suck it up and go back to reading books, and a viewer who doesn't speak the language should stick to the movies from their homeland.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Now before the film "purists" here have a com

    by southafricanguy

    plete fit about what I have just said, for the record I have never seen a 3D film in my life, I have fuckall vested interest in it at all. In fact I plan on seeing Avatar in 2D beofre I even consider seeing it in 3D. But any one with more than two brain cells, and that has actually been paying attention to recent developments, as well as anyone with knowledge of film history, can see the success of 3D. Go check out how much 3D adds to a film's b.o. Ice age 3 made over 600 mil internationally (190 mil stateside), with over 40% of that coming from 3D showings of it. Furthermore it has now conclusively been proven that 3D gives a film "legs". And lets not even start getting into all the home theatre stuff coming to play 3D films and computer games in your home. So carry on deluding yourselves guys, but this is where film is going....

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST


    by Mullah Omar

    I get no additional enjoyment out of watching a 3D film rather than a regular film. This all just seems to be a way for studios to ensure that people see films in theaters, which I would do anyway. 3D has always felt like a gimmick to me. And if you're going to go with a gimmick, why not do Smell-O-Vision or some kind of seat vibrations or something truly different?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:55 a.m. CST

    Good Lord people here are so shitty

    by lockesbrokenleg

    How do you assholes even enjoy anything? You're so busy telling others what THEY must enjoy?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:56 a.m. CST

    The appeal of headtracking is in games and

    by Dingbatty

    virtual reality, and is one step closer to a holodeck-like scenario.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:56 a.m. CST

    What are subtitles for 3D?

    by Toilet_Terror

    Your arguments are nonsense.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2 a.m. CST

    Re: head-tracking

    by Toilet_Terror

    With a stationary screen I don't see what advantage this gives the viewer/player.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Well, one, I was answering cloudrider,

    by Dingbatty

    and two, it's not my fault if you are too dim to understand my analogy.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:04 a.m. CST

    Why would the screen need to move?

    by Dingbatty

    People are interacting with games by standing up and moving around now with controllers with 3D movement detection.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:07 a.m. CST

    It's also has nothing to do with an advantage,

    by Dingbatty

    but with a different way of experiencing an image, much like the 3D movies vaunted in this thread. If you watch the videos, you can see how a person playing a first person shooter and duck and hide by simply ducking one's head. It makes it more physically interactive. Same reason why they put rumble into controllers.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST

    It also, I meant to type.

    by Dingbatty

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST


    by BoE

    You are wasting your time - he doesn't follow what you are saying because he can't. His name is toilet_terror...pity him and turn away.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:10 a.m. CST


    by GibsonUSA Returns

    I refuse to deal with the headache following a 3D movie viewing. 2d VERSION ALL THE WAY

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:11 a.m. CST

    This is probably the coolest news in months

    by bbbbeeeennnn

    and people still find a way to bitch? Aint it sad?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:17 a.m. CST

    Kill yourself...

    by milla jovovich

    with all that fucking gay Twitter bullshit, Harry. Seriously.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Dingbatty I watched that video months ago..

    by Toilet_Terror

    You've failed to explain what makes it so useful. You want to play your XBOX games by nodding your head back and forth? I could think of easier ways.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Re: 3D fad reaching the 14 minute mark...

    by Mariusz

    My sentiment exactly. Why is it that every jackass out there feels every movie should be in 3D? What the fuck?! Or in Imax for that matter. This is bullshit! Who gives a shit! I live a few blocks from the Chinese in Hollywood and this place will give any Imax theatre a run for its money! Fuck Imax. Settle down, folks. It's just another Hollywood master scheme to raise ticket prices and you are falling for it.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:21 a.m. CST

    Also: to BoE

    by Toilet_Terror

    Fuck right off, get bent, go to hell, etc, etc. I wouldn't bother responding but you keep buzzing around me like a little fruit fly.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:24 a.m. CST

    Harry how can u be surprised that we didn't like the ThunderSmur

    by ganymede3010

    Come on dude, that GCI sucked balls. Even though we all hated ROTF notice that none of us complained about the CGI, not one of us.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:29 a.m. CST

    dial it down a bit, milla

    by BoE

    That bandage suit from the 5th Element goes a long way, but I have to draw the line at wishing Ginger McBigbritches ill. If Tons O'Fun wants to wants to get all emo girlie on us, I think he's earned the right.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:45 a.m. CST

    BOE go log off and get a real life

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:37 a.m. CST

    I've got some Iron of my own man...

    by rock_n_roll_jesus

    Scarlett Jo in 3D? Rock'n'Roll Jesus says Hallelujah brothers!!!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Expendables put back 4 months to Aug 2010

    by kwisatzhaderach


  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:15 a.m. CST

    At one point it all gets to be a little too much..

    by Snikkar124

    Everything super slick,and photo real. And now this 3-D fad wich very well migth fall on it`s own face.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:18 a.m. CST

    The only thing I'm worried about

    by smackfu

    is looking back 10-15 years from now, there is going to be this weird blip in movie history where all the films in a 4-5 year stretch are in 3D. Because just as we look back at the earlier 3D films, regardless of how the movie turned out, the 3D seems gimmicky in retrospect and adds a level of cheesiness to all the films that used it. And it IS a gimmick, in that people are only interested in 3D because it's been away for a decade or two. Regardless of the quality, it will go away again after a brief stint because people will immediately stop caring once the novelty wears off.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Locke, you get a disturbing amount of "FIRST!!!"s

    by MattmanReturns

    on practically every talkback. Do you sit around refreshing this site 24/7?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:21 a.m. CST

    Avatar criticism makes Harry cry.

    by MorganLeafy

    He hasn’t talked to Merrick in days.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:26 a.m. CST

    3-D is a gimmick

    by Titus05

    fuck IMAX is a concept I can get behind...IMAX looks 100x better then any 3-D movie...why can't more films be shot with IMAX??

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:26 a.m. CST

    BoE and Lockesbroken.....

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    you both fight on every single thread you each talkback in. Why don't you virtually blow each other and get it over with?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:28 a.m. CST

    3-D is only cool......

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    If you're Sam Beckett and you've leaped into the year 1985.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:28 a.m. CST

    3-D glasses suck

    by Titus05

    3-D's biggest problem is the stupid glasses...people hate wearing those things...once 3-D movies can be watched without glasses then maybe, just maybe, it will be a viable option

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:31 a.m. CST

    Iron Man on HBO?

    by Titus05

    speaking of Iron Man...I still havn't seen it yet...been waiting for it to debut on the premium cable channels but the shit still hasn't shown up on HBO, Starz, Cinemax etc...what the fuck?...they always debut within 1 year...what's the big holdup with Iron Man?? Favreau pulling a Lucas and holding back the premiere of Iron Man??...anyone know?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:31 a.m. CST

    3D is rubbish IMAX is better

    by Roborob

    Cheap tricks is what 3D is about, I would rather see it in the brilliant IMAX format. OK you cant get Imax at home but so far neither can you get effective 3d without those stpid red and green glasses. Now if it were the modern Sunglass looking glasses from the cinema then it may be OK but the realy who wants to wear glasses when you don't require them, just to see cheap tricks.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:32 a.m. CST


    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    I'm sure some people enjoyed the trailer! Now drop that chalupa!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Harry, Harry, Harry...

    by Mr Gorilla

    I can stomach your enthusiasm for 3D because you ALSO have enthusiasm for old films, black and white films, subtitled films, etc. (Said enthusiasm, seen in your DVD column, is one of the cornerstones of this site.) But isn't 3D mostly a way for studios to make video piracy more difficult?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST


    by Titus05

    you can get IMAX at home (somewhat anyway)...ever seen the Blu Ray of Dark Knight?...the IMAX scenes fill up the entire screen while the non-IMAX scenes take up regular widescreen format...IMAX- at-home still looks awesome compared to standard playback

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    Fuck 3D I want SMELL-O-VISION!!

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    I'm very excited about the new wave of 3D but they should also spray WD-40 into the air everytime you see IRON MAN onscreen!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:09 a.m. CST


    by Mace Tofu

    The non 3-D scenes looked better. The shot when the shuttle is being tested looked great in Imax, then a symbol flashed to put on your 3-D glasses. It was in "3-D" but the FX shot right before we had to don glasses looked real in IMAX but was not as real in 3-D because things were popping. When it was over and you had to take off the glasses the next scene looked "real" again. The running in the corn in 3-D didn't work for me at all. Now the scene where Superman was picking up the ship and it fell back into the water was really nice in 3-D as it was a looking down shot and the boat fell away from you. That worked. I love 3-D movies but not sure about converting non-3D into 3-D. Superman was the only "Faux" 3-D I've seen so I hope they are doing a better job on these new movies. I would of loved to of seen a non 3-D version of Superman Returns in IMAX. That was my first thought after watching the "3D" version.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:16 a.m. CST

    How empty do you think.....

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    Knowles's fridge is? I mean I know I'm off topic but goddamn. I looked at a pic of him for the first time in a while.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:17 a.m. CST

    His wife.......

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    must definitely be a mail-ordered one.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:35 a.m. CST

    As far as I can see....

    by Cervantes

    ....this 3D revival is fine as long as movies are FIRST and FOREMOST directed as 2D features as normal!<P> It's 'schlocky' shit that focuses on cheap 'n nasty 'coming at ya' shots that give it a bad name.<P> I'm all for eventual 2D to 3D 'CONVERSIONS', rather than filming in 'dedicated 3D', as that won't encourage stupid 'in-your-face' shots by directors. As long as there's a choice between seeing a movie 'normally' or in 3D, then there's no problem.<P> 'Conversions' can give tremendous 3D depending on time given, and the company doing it. BTW, if the 1 minute of IRON MAN 2 footage looks so great, why don't they just get that SAME particular fucking company to do it ALL as good then, and screw 'bidding out' the work?....<P> Developments in 3D 'home cinema' seem to be moving fast now, and it's not gonna be that red / green glasses crap either. You can keep up with it all at if you're interested. 3D is here to stay this time.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:41 a.m. CST


    by Cervantes son managed to hold onto his and his girlfriends realD glasses for just such a future eventuality.... Our local cinema somehow don't seem to have cottoned onto that one yet....

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:46 a.m. CST

    4D!!!! It's not 3D!!!

    by sacmetal

    Movies by their nature have been 3D since they started! Movies that have a Z axis of perception are 4D. Get it right!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:52 a.m. CST

    i see what's the problem now

    by cloudrider`

    it's money, isnt it? as in, you dont have much to spend. correct? well, like i said, it's a choice. you dont feel like paying more for a movie, there's always the 2D option. nobody is forcing you to see every film in 3D. <p>here's what you spoiled kids need to get straight: the world does NOT revolve around you! just because you're broke, or you dont have 20/20 vision, prone to headache, or blind or retarded, doesnt mean the whole world has to adjust themselves to YOU. cinema doesnt stop progressing just because some geeks get headache when watching 3D. and i got a headache whenever i watch a michael bay movie, and they're all in 2D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:52 a.m. CST

    actually, cheyne_stoking_DMS

    by BoE

    if you look at my posts, you'll see I haven't said anything to lockes on this thread...

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Is this 3d stuff like the ones at disney

    by kingoflight

    with the jim henson muppets or is this better quality ? The muppets was cool and all but i don't see myself sitting through a 2 hour movie with thoese glasses on.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 5:58 a.m. CST

    I would go back and read em'.....

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    but life's too short. Forget I even said anything, pal.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 6:03 a.m. CST

    ENOUGH! If I wanted 3-D I'd look out my window

    by Tallguyme


  • Sept. 2, 2009, 6:07 a.m. CST

    smell-o-vision already exist in japan

    by cloudrider`

    so dont count that out yet as future addition to your viewing experience. just be thankful you dont have theaters that serve you steak while the film is playing on the screen. that exists in my country. they charge you more just to distract you with food.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 6:42 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    It could be fun, or headache inducing. One or the other.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Does anybody know.....

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    How long they've advertised the Rene Belloq 12 inch figure?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Come to think of it....

    by MorganLeafy

    If 3D really works, really then why be against it? Don't be afraid to embrace the future after all I'll bet there was resistance against the first talkies as well. That being said, two concerns I have about Avatar: first of all, I think perfectionning the art of 3D is difficult enough, why did Cameron think he could singlehandedly think he could improve the quality of CGI to photorealistic? Why didn’t he focus one challenge at a time? Secondly, the story looks crap and that combined with the very limited talent of Cameron as a writer makes me wonder if the MOVIE Avatar will be good.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Post-process 3D is the poormans version

    by skugga

    This years Siggraph conference had a huge 3D focus. Alot of the made for 3D films (mainly animated) looked really good. The post processed ones like G-Force didn't. This sounds like the later method unfortunately

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Repulsoring Your Eyeballs in 2011!!!

    by turketron_2

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:45 a.m. CST

    er, 2010

    by turketron_2

    Sorry, been time travelling too much

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Does Everything Have To be In 3-D!! Iron Man Please No!!

    by What The Duck

    i have seen a few films in 3-d and didn't really care for it. 3-D is a simple gimmick. For example movies like Final destination 3 or bloody valentine needed 3-d to get people into the theaters. i don't think Iron Man would benefit. i hope the movie is good enough without it. Don't get me wrong UP was awesome in 3-D. It just seems like every movie is 3_d now and that is annoying.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:47 a.m. CST

    3D was great in the 1950s...Now, not so much.

    by SpyGuy

    Time to finally stake this stupid gimmick once and for all.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Bring on the trailer, already!

    by kafka07

    What's takin them so long??

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Why a lot on here despise 3-D movies

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because if you take away the 3-D, they are worthless (and even some are still worthless with the 3-D). When you just tack it on to something that wasn't originally shot in 3-D, it's okay sometimes if it's somthing that has a plot. And face it fools, as much as the digital defenders want to convince you otherwise, film still looks better!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Is it just me or does 3-D

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Take you out of the film. It's hard to get into a story when you've got stuff flying around the theater.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:15 a.m. CST


    by daggor

    I've seen 3-D movies, and it doesn't really help me enjoy the film more. It's neato and all, but unless it's some goofy theme-park shlock with something jumping out at you every 5 seconds, I'd rather just watch a good story.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:22 a.m. CST

    Coraline is the only film to date...

    by CatVutt

    That was markedly improved by the 3D process. The color scheme, the stop-motion, and the 3D all worked together. In live action stuff, it's mostly wasted, and in Pixar's 'Up', it just simply doesn't add anything. And I'm sorry, but wearing glasses is annoying. It just is. Dumb, mostly unnecessary gimmickry.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:52 a.m. CST


    by meta4

    sorry about the caps,but i thought beowolf was only watchable due to the 3-D imax effect. That movie was terrible without those cool effects.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:03 a.m. CST

    3-D Glasses help in spreading the Swine flu!

    by Series7

    Do you really think they clean them after each show? Have you seen the people that work at theaters? I tired to get a part time job to earn some mo money at a theater. They saw I had a degree and laughed at me, told me to just get a better full time job.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST


    by Turtle_Z

    Are we so jaded by cinema now that all we can hope for are the schlocky, gimmicky thrills of 50's B-movies?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:12 a.m. CST


    by Series7

    Totally agree about the 3-D in Coraline adding to the movie. Did you watch the scene after the credits? <P> After the 3-D in Up, a lot of the times I thought shit was in 3-D took off my glasses and it was normal. I was like this movie doesn't even need 3-D the animation was already good enough.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Conversion from 2D to 3D = FAIL

    by entrainer

    I love 3D at the Imax. <p> When I saw Polar Express and Ghosts of the Abyss, I knew this would revolutionize film making, just like color film. <p> But converting 2D to 3D is like colorizing a B&W film. It's not as good. <p> I've seen the process they use to convert 2D to 3D. It rarely has curves... just flat pieces of film spaced in the 3D dimension. Like a pop-up book. <p> Cameron is on the right track, as he's the only person I know who's developed cameras that can change depth of field in 3-D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:40 a.m. CST

    I'm really tired of 3D, it's not something new anymore

    by MrFloppy

    The dimensionalizing (it's that a word?) aspect is great, but I won't pay +3€ for a non-cleaned glasses that makes the picture less bright and colorful.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:44 a.m. CST


    by ToughGuyRizzo

    Please change your username as it really disgraces the LOST community on here. Anyone else reading, he aint with us. Jesus, Harry owned you. I'd cal it a day, er...well, I wouldnt post anymore if Harry PoNed you. (no W)

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST


    by HoboCode

    That is all.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST

    WSJ: Sony Plans 3-D TV by Late 2010

    by Juror Number 8

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:51 a.m. CST

    IMAX is another world. I hope we can get more TRUE IMAX theaters

    by MrFloppy

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Jesus Christ.

    by The Garbage Man

    Between lockesbrokenleg using his 200th post in the last 24 hours to advise someone to "go log off and get a real life" and Trannyformers_Apologist calling everyone "a liar and a troll," my irony meter just exploded. Anyone have an extra flux capacitor?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST

    better link for sony 3-d tv story

    by Juror Number 8

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Comin' Atcha

    by Tapeworm2042

    I'm not sure what the big hate fest is all about. Now that we are in the thick of the new 3-D fad. It's new and will get better. Issues with clarity, and eye fatigue will be worked out. The gimmick of 3-D isn't going to make a bad movie better or a good movie bad. We will always have the gimmick flicks. The good thing is that 3-D can be used in a good way and it doesn't cheapen the film. Pixar's UP is a great movie that had a few 3-D moments that were cool, but the rest was subtle touches that added depth. I've seen both versions and didn't miss the 3-D, nor did I think the 3-D was obtrusive. Coroline is another example of how 3-D is done right. If it is handled with that kind of sensitivity it can enhance the film. Cameron is trying to use his technology to emerse the viewer into his world. I don't think the trailers do it any justice at all.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Yeah, nobody really cares about 3D outside of AICN

    by YackBacker

    I give the theaters credit for trying to be innovative, but people aren't going to seek out 3D venues to see movies. This is nothing more than a gimmick. Remember "virtual reality" was a big thing 20 years ago... and then it fizzled.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Fuck this shit, I want my own personal holodeck

    by SoylentMean

    that way, I'd never have to interact with "real" people ever again. I'm not sure what numbers the studios are looking at but I don't think 3D, or RealD, or whatever the fuck it's being called now has caused mass flocking to theaters. I like it when it works and hate it when it's sloppy and stupid. I'm sure the 3D they'd do for Iron Man would be phenomenal, but how will the film look on home video if purposefully shot in 3D? <P> And why in the fuck are studios investing more money in a format of film that, when those films hit theaters, cost more to attend than a traditional, 2D film? <P> Maybe the recession really is over...

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:12 a.m. CST

    I bet they won't show this at the two Imax theaters

    by Series7

    In my state either, just like they aren't showing Avatar. Looks like its more nature docs and A Christmas Carole for the 50th time for me. <P> How does an Imax that shows nothing but Fly Me Too The Moon and Nature doc stay in buisness?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Speaking of Virtual Reality=The Virtual Boy

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Celebrating it's 15th anniversary this month! Nothing better than staring into a screen with a red and black image to play some crappy Mario Tennis game!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:29 a.m. CST

    I'll stick with good ole Double D, thanks

    by technotard

    I agree with YackBacker's 'virtual reality' analogy... 3D is a fad - one that inexplicably resurfaces every 25 years or so. I'm glad to see so many other people find it distracting & unnecessary. Still, if the kids want their candy, I say let 'em have it, as long as there's a normal (2D) option for us old codgers, and that 3D storytelling doesn't de-volve into everything "flyin' at the screen"...

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:31 a.m. CST


    by onezeroone

    That is the best reaction I can muster. 3D is nothing more than a gimmick to increase ticket prices and make more money. It doesn't add any value to film going experience, at least not for me.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST

    The Virtual Boy

    by Series7

    OHHH man I love that thing. I still have it I think. I haven't been able to see ever since I fell asleep with it still on.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Never going to happen

    by Doc_Martigan

    How many times have we seen 3D come back as a small fad since the 1950's? 3D will never get a foot hold in the mainstream public strong enough for it to last or be commonplace to don a pair of 3D glasses. It's cheesy. It's a gimmick. And for myself and many others, it's not how we have watched movies for our entire lives, so when you are seeing a movie in 3D, you are taken out of the moment. You aren't immersed in the movie, you are thinking "Hey wow look at all this shit around me." Not to mention you look like an asshat with those filthy grease covered glasses on. A for effort, but it's never going to happen.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Yet to see a "new" 3D movie

    by BenBraddock

    I can wait.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11 a.m. CST

    Harry, I appreciate your excitement...

    by brattyben

    but you really need to get out more. That first sentance just...I dunno. I get the excitement...but the hyperbole is just too much.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Hopefully this 3-D thing...

    by brattyben

    falls the way of remakes and just fuckin' dies. I hate 3-D. Even if they up the tech, those glasses will ALWAYS give me a headache. It just seems that we would get one good experience for every two dozen bad ones. Not looking forward to that, or the increase in my ticket price. I already have to mortgage my house to see a flick as it is.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:17 a.m. CST

    falls the way of remakes and just fuckin' dies

    by Series7

    When did remakes die????

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    If you get a headache or infection from 3d glasses

    by David Cloverfield

    You're a weakling.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Iron Man

    by David Cloverfield

    Is not for weaklings. He's Iron Man!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    As long as it doesn't rely on it...

    by Logan_1973

    I'm okay with it. If it doesn't lose a bunch over a 2D viewing, then do it up...

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Call me...

    by Bubba Gillman

    ...when it's filmed in Illusion-O or Sensearound, or if it's Tingler-ized.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Wonder Woman in 3-D

    by Snookeroo

    Now THERE'S a couple of good reasons for 3-D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Black Dynamite in 3D...

    by turketron_2

    So you can see where I'm comin from, you jive muthafuckaaaaaahhh!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Harry i had lasix so you are killin me dude....

    by rben

    lasix means "can't watch 3-D" in kligon.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST


    by poliscig1

    This move would seem to make sense due to the fact that Sony just announced that they are putting out 3D LCD TV's by the end of next year... They could use this as their first big demo release for their new product line...

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    The 4-D experience

    by ebonic_plague

    So I went to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago recently, and there was this thing called "The 4-D experience." I wondered what that extra "D" could represent, so I checked it out... and discovered that the only thing more gimmicky than 3-D is 4-D. The actual film was a short bit of that "Planet: Earth" documentary series, and the gimmick of 4-D is basically: a squirt gun that sprays you in the face when there is a shot of splashing water, fans that start up when there is a windy scene, and an actual stick built into the back of your chair that pokes you in the back (can't remember what that was supposed to be synced up with). It was FUCKING DISTRACTING. Not to mention the cheap 3-D. Total gimmick. I can't even imagine trying to watch an actual movie that way. I'll see Avatar in a 3-D theater, just to see what all the fuss is about, but for 90% of new releases, it's rarely worthwhile to do anything but just wait for it to show up on cable. I finally just saw Incredible Hulk and Rambo for the first time that way. Theaters are obsolete, the sooner that they do away with that business model, the better.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Consensus: 3-D not Immersive

    by Samuel Fulmer

    The 3-D is Distracting, glasses can possibly spread disease, and the films usually have the 3-D tacked on to cover for a terrible plot (much like most SFX heavy films that trade CGI for plot). If this truly the "future" of the cinema experience, than I guess we need to euthanise the movie theater.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    3D is better with locked down / slow camera and non-flashy editi

    by Tall_Boy66

    Seen a few 3D movies this summer (G-Force, Up & The Final Destination) and basically for 3D to work best, filmmakers have to tone back on the flashy, hyper-speed editing and camera movements that we've seen in movies for, like, two decades so far. I don't mind that, it's something different, but you can't pull off a handheld shot in 3D. For me, I like 3D when it's truly sold as a gimmick. Like, The Final Destination is the first movie ever that would be completely irrelevant upon home viewing, but it's at least mildly entertaining in 3D at the theatres. But, yeah, if you pull of 3D, you have to tone back on the X-Treme directorial style, otherwise you can't appreciate the 3D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST


    by Toulon

    ... is the only film I've seen in 3D where the process added ANYTHING to the story telling. Everything else has been a gimmick, and honestly, not that well pulled off. Before Coraline, the Bloody Valentine 3D was the best I'd seen . . . and it was, as someone else put it, paper images in a 3D plane.<p>I can't stand putting up with the fucking glasses, which CONSTANTLY remind me that I'm wearing glasses to watch 3D, and therefore not fully engrossed in the STORY, only the VISUAL. Now, I'll give Avatar a chance, but . . . ugh.<p>I want the 3D thing to stop. IMAX I enjoy, bigger screens I enjoy . . . but it'd be nice if I WANTED TO WATCH THE STORY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Just to clarify...

    by Toulon

    ... I'm not in the Avatar-hating-boat . . . but I have very little interest in the 3D aspect of it compared to just seeing it on a big screen.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST

    the way to get people back into cinemas

    by Castiel

    is to get those people who fucking talk and talk on their mobile phones out.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST

    You gonna Captain Eo that Mofo?

    by Axl Z

    Seriously, I watched The Final Desin.. whatever that crap was.. and I've had a migrain ever since.. I hate 3D, maybe it was the film thou..??

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    and what about one eyed customers?

    by Axl Z

    this is pure eyeism..

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    And what about color-blind customers?

    by SpyGuy

    If you have issues with the red or blue parts of the spectrum, you're fucked when it comes to 3-D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 2:58 p.m. CST


    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST

    3D is here to stay.

    by imagin78

    Accept the facts. 3D is not going anywhere. <p> Big directors like Jackson, Del Toro, Spielberg and Cuaron are interested in using it. <p> Every single 3D film released this year, except for the Jonas Brothers, made money. Studios see that and their eyes glow. <p> Also, who is talking about red and blue? What is this the 80's? Have some people gone to a 3D film in the past ten years?

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Shitty Assholes in 3D doesn't take away from the fact

    by Disney_Retcond_my_STD

    that's it's still a shitty asshole.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST

    hey kdoc13

    by carlinesque_thinktank

    i hate movies without a decent story too, but if you are THAT interested in only the story and nothing, especially 3D can't make it a different experience for you, go and read a fucking book.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST


    by lockesbrokenleg

    It's polarized glasses now. It's like theme park ride glasses. The tech is much better, but you still remember you need glasses to watch a movie.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:23 p.m. CST

    oi check it yeah

    by Axl Z

    I ain't talkin like dey ain't pom dem ting but yeah read a book. Down with hollywood I say.. we need more dancing in films and musicals, look at Bollywood and Sweeney Todd. This is the future, Iron Man could breakout into Guns N' Roses Civil War or something in the namesack film.. excellent!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Sweeny Todd sucked shit

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Who watches that shit? Emos.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST

    this is true but..

    by Axl Z

    anything that has "ho ho ho.. now I have a machine gun" singing in is truly worth a watch

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST

    3D is a Special Effect. Simple.

    by Larry of Arabia

    It can't help a bad script. It can't aid poor direction. How "vastly superior" would The Phantom Menace be in 3D? Even more, how can 3D enhance something like Doubt? Color was a tool. Sound was a tool. 3D is a tool. Use it well and we will care. Use it poorly and we will tire of it again.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Whatever happened to

    by Series7

    Smell-o-vision? John, make a big budget studio flick damnit! You gotta have gotten some of that Hairspray money.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Why 3D will fade

    by Larry of Arabia

    How many people do you know that get eyestrain watching something in color? I have three friends who wear glasses or contacts and can't go to 3D films because they leave with eyestrain and headaches.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:03 p.m. CST

    One-eyed customers can get skull fucked.

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    That's just an undebatable fact. It doesn't really have anything to do with 3D.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:13 p.m. CST

    The solution to all of Hollywood's problems: PERCEPTO

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    Imagine the possibility of PERCEPTO with today's digital technology.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST

    How would Phantom Menace be in 3D?

    by Samuel Fulmer

    We'll find out soon enough when James Cameron shows us in December.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 6:03 p.m. CST

    3D causes Cancer....

    by jaysin420

    Yep its a fact.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:09 p.m. CST

    Color and sound are fads.

    by gotilk

    Give me my silent 46 inch B&W tv already!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 7:53 p.m. CST

    And what about those with amblyopia?

    by strosmer

    They have one bad eye and cannot experience the stereoscopic effect. It's just not fair!

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Avatar Vs Phantom Menace

    by Disney_Retcond_my_STD

    At least with Menace you could always say, "but the Darth Maul stuff with tight, right?". with Avatar what do you have? "but Zoe Zaldana vagina was tight, right... possibly... maybe?"

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:28 p.m. CST

    some unbelievable nimrods in here

    by cloudrider`

    comparing avatar to phantom menace already? have you seen the film? have you seen how the 3D will be used in the film? no and no? then you're just talking out of your ass, arent you? <p> cameron always push the tech in every movie he's made, and never once, he let the tech compromise the story. never once. his track records is a solid proof. once you make it a habit, it's hard to break.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 10:39 p.m. CST

    and once again, the world doesnt revolve around you

    by cloudrider`

    you prone to headache and have bad eyes, you stick to 2D viewing, or stay home and sulk it. the world doesn't stop moving just because of your inconvenience. you pussy get a headache watching 3D doesnt mean 3D cant be enjoyed by the rest of population. wa wa wawah... it's a gimmick! yeah, right. why dont you admit you just dont want to spend more for a movie. fine! just stick to 2D. it's a choice. nobody is forcing you, pal.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:04 p.m. CST

    How do you "3D-ize" a scene that was only shot with one camera?

    by santoanderson

    Do you go in to each scene and manually paint out a z-depth version of each frame? I ain't drinking the kool-aid.

  • Sept. 2, 2009, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Oh my god, Iron Man 2 in 3D?!??!

    by moonlightdrive

    The thought of it is just blowing my mind. This is crazy good news!!!!!!! I loved Iron Man and saw it twice and the cinema. I would gladly go back for a 3D viewing. Loving all the 3D.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 1:08 a.m. CST

    3D is useless

    by MacReady452

    without Betsey Rue

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Fuck 3d

    by HanSelo

    In the real world stereoscopic eyes only give us 3d depth perception for distances up to 10 feet away, anything further than that and we use movement and percieved size to work out which is closer to us. Watching a 2d movie that has been 'directed' has us focusing on what the director wants us to look at, just like real life. Imagine playing a football game but instead of looking at where the ball is you find yourself regularly looking around at what else is going on... your focus is gone. 2D Films work because you are immersed in the story that the director is showing you. 3D films will fail because you are not immersed in the story... you may be immersed in some 3D world that has been created, like a theme park attraction, but you won't be immersed in the story. Fuck 3D and its headache inducing, tunnelvision creating, film destroying shittyness.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Fat people and 3D

    by Nabster

    go hand in hand. No need to live life anymore, just sit in a 3d movie theater all day long. Good job Harry, you are the sexiest obese critic in America.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 9:02 a.m. CST

    HD 3D PORN!!!

    by effector12

    No objections. In general 3D is not all that bad.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 10:03 a.m. CST

    er....does my log in work

    by colonel foster

    Loved this film...prefered ROBOCOP.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 10:20 a.m. CST


    by Darkman

    IRON MAN is a Paramount release. <br><br> For some reason, Showtime (also a Viacom property) likes to drag its heels when airing major movies. I'd expect it sometime this winter.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST

    For those of us who wear eye glasses...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...I hope that the 2D version will be just as good.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    The most pointless thing about 3D is,

    by Dingbatty

    when you get buy the disc, you see a bunch a objects pointed randomly at the screen, like that SCTV skit. Unless you don't mind anaglyph, which'll most assuredly bother your eyes.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 5:14 p.m. CST

    RE: carlinesque_thinktank

    by kdoc13

    Yeah, I do care more about story than crappy special effects. Think of every 3D movie ever made, there are always moments specially set aside for that 3D experience and it always ruins the story. Story is why Jaws 1 was good, but Jaws 3D is forgotten, why Spy Kids is actually kind of decent, and why Spy Kids 3D blows. A decent story is always the most important thing. So stop being a cock, with lame attempts at insults like "read a fucking book." For example, unlike you, I know how to read. That's an insult. I read the penthouse letter I wrote about banging your mom, last night. Even better insult.

  • Sept. 3, 2009, 10:17 p.m. CST


    by BARDO

    Do we get to see Ollie and Charlie snorting the powder, or Mike Doug's hist of win or loss around the spare tire

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 3:16 a.m. CST

    AICN Exclusive: IRON MAN 2 in 3D?!?!

    by clydd

    There is an on-going debate on just how "worthy" a conversion, 2 recent films were. G-Force and the first segment of Harry-Potter. I am of the opinion that these converted films should be labeled 2.5D films. as they are not Stereoscopic 3D films in the true sense, and there are glaring errors in these converted films. People are encouraged to follow the debate here and form their own opinion. (At best, the debate can be a learning experience for future planning of 3D films). Regards, Clyde

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 6 a.m. CST

    Porn Industry and not Avatar or IM2 etc will

    by ominus

    bring the 3D as the next evolution step for the cinema.Just like it did with videotapes,dvd and bluray. <p>Since 3d amplifies the immersion of the viewer into the movie,just imagine how it would ie in a POV porn movie.the possibilities are endless.

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 9:47 a.m. CST

    3-D is not the future, so far

    by greygor

    3-D has it's been used so far does not amplifiy the immersion of viewer. Currently it seems to divorce the viewer from experience, or it least does so to this viewer. Nobody yet as actually utilised successfully 3-D to enhance and advance the story IMO. We are still almost at the stage of "look there" as the arm points out the screen of the 50's. I'm still not convinced it's any more than an anti-piracy exercise. And paying extra to where badly fitting glasses you have to give back - Fuck That.

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST


    by mattforce7

    in 3D

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 12:31 p.m. CST

    3D advertisements.imagine a coca bottle emerging out

    by ominus

    of the cinema/tv screen.3D is the future and you all know it.

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 5:29 p.m. CST


    by blakindigo

    3D porn has been around for at least 30 years.

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 8:04 p.m. CST

    Could they erase the 2-D and 3-D Nick Fury from both films?

    by Monkey_King

    and insert Clint Eastwood or Mel Gibson like they should have? Any connections to Marvel's ULTIMATES ruins these films.

  • Sept. 4, 2009, 11:17 p.m. CST

    I'll tell you what 3D does to a movie...

    by vettebro

    It makes the price go up! Going to the theater is way too expensive already! Oh how I miss the the old "Two dollar Tuesdays". Taking the wife and kids out at the movies costs $70 now. It will be an additional $10-$15 for 3D. When does the madness stop?

  • Sept. 5, 2009, 11:06 a.m. CST

    3d is a scam

    by Potatino

    If you go see a 3d movie now its $20. That's what I paid to see Coroline 3d. Did it make the movie 25% more awesome.. no! Did it make the story 25% more emotionally! Did I pay 25% more...yes! Thats all 3D is. A way to make me pay more. If the story is good enough, if the movie is cool enough, it should be able to be told in 2d and made cheaply and still make me go goddamn.

  • Sept. 5, 2009, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by Baryonyx


  • Sept. 8, 2009, 5:40 a.m. CST

    I think there's a reason 3D went out of style for awhile

    by liesandpicturesofalsolies

    I'm sure 14-year olds will have their minds blown but overall, I don't really get it. Sure, it looks like that one thing is in front of the other thing... moreso... but my disbelief is already suspended and I'm involved in the story so who cares? This is clearly a grab for cash and who cares what we think, parents and the allowance-slingers will eat it up until it isn't new anymore. Please, just don't do Star Wars prequel trilogy in 3D, those movies have suffered enough.

  • Feb. 11, 2010, 8:29 p.m. CST


    by orcus