Every day it seems the list of upcoming 3-D movies is growing exponentially.
And now you can add two more sequels to the ever growing list–“Star Trek” and “Iron Man.”
Yes, you read that right–it’s possible we could be paying even more to see these highly anticipated sequels thanks to 3-D.
One movie we won’t have to pay extra to see will be the upcoming “Spider-Man 4.” Apparently they’ve decided that two dimensions is enough for the sequel. That’s probably a good thing since all the Spidey swinging about in 3-D could make you a bit dizzy and possibly require the instillation of barf bags in theaters.
But that doesn’t mean Sony doesn’t want part of the 3-D pie. They’re looking at the proposed third “Men in Black” being in 3-D.
I must be missing something with this 3D fad, because I just don’t see the draw for it at all. And it just seems hokey. Am I wrong on this?
hokey!
Since they won’t let you reuse the 3-D glasses, I think it is just a bid to make kore box office sales. It’s just a bunch of crap. As much as I want to see these movies in the theater, I may just boycott.
I really don’t understand the fascination with 3D films. I can see some value when they’re used to add depth to a scene, but the jumping out from the screen crap is just plain annoying and cheesy.
It’s just another way for them to add an extra dollar or three to the price of a ticket. Between me and my 6 year old son, we have enough 3d glasses for at least half the theater around the house. I refuse to put them in the recycle box after the movie. I payed for them, they are mine.
3D is fun and when done right brings you into the world. My significant other has no depth perception and thus is unable to enjoy that part of it. The direction of a 3D movie might be “Hokey” but my bet is Avatar will change minds when people realize what a great director (like James Cameron) can do with it.