Just because WB won't pay to shoot in stereo doesn't mean they won't then get some Korean sweatshop to post-processed the movies. Why invest more than they need to, when they already know that audiences paid a premium to watch Alice and Titans in "3D"?

So, no, I don't think we're seeing the end of "3D", I just think we're seeing the end of pretending to care about the quality of it.

Most of the action/epic movie genre shot in real life, rather than on a green screen heavily uses perspective effects to achieve drama.

Something like the famous contra-zoom [wikipedia.org] would be a complete failure in 3-D. The entire sequence in LoTR where Gandalf and Frodo are in the same shot would just not work in 3-D unless you went in and fixed the perspective for every frame.

Half of the hollywood real-life special effects would need to be re-invented for 3-D to work right. Or the CGI versions need to catch up to the old-school effects.

And then there are people like me who accidentally distracted by the background. I take a look at it and then my eyes sort of complain about not being able to bring a backdrop object into focus. Totally kills the immersion for me. I want 3-D movies, but not this polarized lenses in each eye monstrosity (I wonder if I could get contacts with those).

I disagree. I believe the only way for 3D to become the standard is for it to be used on film that don't call for it and not be exploited. In other words, it needs to be used largely nonexploitively. When it's used for run-of-the-mill comedies and melodramas, it will truly have arrived. I personally hope that doesn't happen.

I think the best thing 3D could have done was not "advertise" and push it in your face. You get a stupid feeling when something comes flying off the screen. I would have liked to see movies push less of the "in your face" 3D and use it to help see depth in the movie. I think too many movies are trying to break that screen barrier and they are doing it in cheesy ways.

3D: old and busted. Feel Around [youtube.com]: new and hotness.

Action works just fine in stereoscopic view. Quick cuts and shaky cam not so much ... which is the greatest reason I like it, even more than the effect itself. Nothing lazier than turning the screen into one gigantic 24 Hz clusterfuck of juddering unrecognisable crap to imply action. Anything that reduces shaky cam is okay in my book.

PS. Nolan's love of shaky cam is probably part of the reason for remaining 2D ...

The other significant factor here is that 3D movies really have to be watched in a theater, as opposed to Netflix or illegal download.

I'm not a big fan of 3d (I've heard some people are more/less sensitive to the effect - it still looks pretty flat to me/not very impressive). But, I will agree in that I don't bother going to the movies anymore.

Back in the day, we had a 27" TV. Standard Def. It wasn't even a flat screen. When a movie came out, it came out on VHS. The speakers were whatever cheap crappy speakers they stuck in the TV at the factory.

The movie theater was *WAY* better than that. WAY BETTER. Even with the handful of annoying people you have to deal with to watch a movie.

But now....I've got a 52" HDTV complete with a fairly nice surround sound system. Instead of a VHS - I've got a blue-ray player.

The only reason I'd go to see a movie at the theater is if I couldn't stand to wait a few months for it to come out on DVD/Blu-ray. I might go for a huge blockbuster 1-2 times a year; but that's it.

If the movie theaters all went 3D - it would, at least, be a technology most people can't get right now, in their living room.

I sure am glad people like you didn't exist back in the days of movies getting sound, color being added, new IMAX, technicolor, new computer generated scenery. We'd be stuck with sock puppets, still.

Except none of the things you state require me to wear silly glasses that barely fit (thanks to wearing glasses) a large portion of the population, and that gives another large portion a splitting head ache when worn for any period of time. Also the technologies you list qualitatively improved film, 3D is a gimick, pure and simple.

I have yet to see a 3D movie that is better than its 2D counterpart. If 3D is all you have to offer, you probably have a really bad movie.

Now if they had 3D that didn't require the glasses, I might be sold.

I don't often watch movies more than once (there are a few exceptions, of course), so watching movies on a 50' screen in high-def and superior surround sound at $3-$12 a pop (depending on which theater I go to - $3 theaters rock!) is a better experience for my money than dropping $1.5k+ and spending $3-$30 per movie. Do you realize I could watch 150+ movies in the theater at $9 each for the price of a decent 52" TV? 450 if I stick to the cheap theaters (one of which is actually probably the best movie experience in town - beer + pizza+ $3 movies = awesome).

With my movie viewing habits (average about 2 per month) that's 6 years worth of movies. You'll probably be upgrading your equipment before then, but who knows, maybe not eh? If we add in the cost of movies (assuming $3 per movie 2 movies a month, you're probably spending 2-5 times that though) and a mid-range blu-ray player and it's another 3 years before you break even with me just going to the theater.

Of course, that's just for me. If you watch every movie that comes out, for example, you'll burn through $2k worth of movies in a year or so. If you stick to the cheap, $3 theaters (which still have better picture and sound than your home theater, btw) it would take three decades to break even with me. If you got the premium online rental plan at $30 per month, you'll never break even. But then, if you like to watch every movie under the sun, you would break even pretty quickly.

It's all relative to your viewing habits. I personally find the theater a lot cheaper and more rewarding, but you may not. If I do have a movie I want to watch more than once, my 8 year old 42" HDTV that I got for $400 used is more than good enough for me.

But like I said, that's just me. :)