I do wonder, however, how 3D would have fared if we weren\’t in the midst of a recession – would movie goers still be so subjective as to whether they watched a movie in 2D or 3D?

And where is the \”adult\” (i.e. X rated film )industry. They should have jumped on the bandwagon again by now—at least with some hard R films.

3D is here for a long time. I am told by a reliable source who has been involved in producing several highly successful animated 3D films that the additional cost to shoot in 3D is only about a million dollars (can anybody weigh in on this?). So even if the balance is shifting towards 2D, the number of 3D tickets sold is still huge when a film is a hit and therefore worth the extra cost. With international being late in installing 3D, they are still peaking.

Katzenberg led the charge that resulted in many exhibitors spending their own money to install digital and 3D (so the studios can save billions of dollars on prints, shipping and storage). He focus is making #D an ongoing success. He is correct that a quality product is essential to keeping audiences interested. And that includes top presentation in theaters which isn\’t where it should be either.

Never could see the appeal in overpriced, headache-inducing, underlit cinema that you need clunky headgear to view.

\”Real life\” is in 3-D. I think that I can handle watching simulacrums of it in two dimensions for a couple of hours.

I\’ll view Tintin the normal way primarily because I have no desire to pay extra to see it & the trailers look pretty damn dark.