Quote Originally Posted by Corvus T. Cosmonaut View Post
I've seen movies where the 3-D could be called 'good', but none where it was even remotely necessary and plenty where it was detrimental.
I think the use of "necessary", in this context, under the umbrella of Entertainment has to be omitted from our language. What would necessary use of 3D be? What's necessary use of color in a movie? Is sound or music even necessary? It wasn't necessary to use color in The Wizard of Oz, but it enhanced the experience. It wasn't necessary to film or present Avatar in 3D, but it heightened the level of immersion. A movie in and of itself is not necessary. We all know film making is about storytelling above all. Ideally, one wants to be lost in the story, and (when done well) 3D can accelerate that feeling - it doesn't provide it (again, that's the story's responsibility), but it can be supportive. Like you said, it can just as easily be detrimental, too. It's a tricky device because if you paid for it, you want to recognize it, but you don't want it to be so apparent that you're constantly acknowledging the artificiality of what you're watching.

I totally get the backlash, and most arguments are valid, but I'm still pretty excited by the technology. Speaking as a movie-goer, it's fucking expensive, and not always fulfilling, but I like that it puts people in the theater. I've had varied experiences, but seeing the last trailer for The Avengers in 3D got me all riled up again (and that wasn't even filmed with 3D cameras). In Ridley's enthusiastic hands I think there will be some notable 3D sequences in Prometheus.

Regardless of the amount of Ds present, this will be an incredible film!