Thor was the demigod of the box office this weekend with $66 million dollars in ticket sales. MTBS hasn’t checked it out yet, but we do know that Thor is a 2D to 3D conversion, and not a true stereoscopic 3D film that is based on two unique camera views.
We’d be interested to hear from MTBS members on what they thought of this conversion and the trend of 2D-3D conversion. Titles like Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender were publicly shamed by consumers and industry alike because of their poor 3D conversion. In your opinion, is the technology growing more practical and visually effective with each movie release, or is this a 3D quick-fix that is causing more long term harm than good? If you knew a 3D movie was a conversion before going to the theater, would you still pay the 3D premium, or save some money and go for the original 2D version?
Last question for you! If you really liked one conversion over another, what to you made it an attractive conversion? What visual features stood out?
If you are new to MTBS, and haven’t commented on MTBS articles before, we know there was a registration bug preventing participation. This has been fixed! Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any registration issues.