Should i see harry potter 3d

Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is meant to be dark and gloomy, but this couldn't be what J. Rowling had in mind. It should also be noted that I saw the film on a studio lot, so I find it hard to believe that I viewed it with anything other than optimum conditions.

The glasses may be dark and uncomfortable, but there's a very good reason why you have to wear them during a 3D movie. If you don't, the screen appears to be distorted and blurry as two separate images are being sent to each ocular cavity.

What's interesting is that the more blurry the screen is during the Glasses Off Test, the more effective the 3D. As you can probably expect from everything you've read above, Harry Potter doesn't perform exceptionally in this area.

With the exception of the one scene mentioned in the Before The Window section - again, spoilers - the movie is almost watchable without the glasses. Taking off your glasses helps with the brightness situation, but unfortunately still hurts your wallet. Some people can't watch 3D movies without intense feelings of motion sickness and terrible headaches. This is often attributed to the movie failing to establish focal points and making the audience constantly search the screen causing eye strain.

If there's anything positive that can be said about the 3D in Harry Potter it's that it didn't make me feel sick. But as Warner has painfully learned, 3D conversion isn't as easy as waving a magic wand and chanting "Convertium threediosa". The rushed conversion of Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender drummed up a barrage of bad press, and opened muggle eyes to the fact this new magic we're being charged extra for may in fact be a cheap trick.

Studios have clearly realised the spell is broken, tacking an emphatic ' Shot in 3D ' to the title of bonkers Nicolas Cage vehicle Drive Angry. Cameron is deeply critical of post-production 3D-ifying, maintaining it should only be used to make classic films classic-er, like his own Aliens, Terminator 2 and Titanic.

While Indy 3D gets our geek juice flowing, we're not keen on the idea of conversion. Another problem with this is the fact it encourages studios to re-punt their old films, instead of making new ones. Cinemas are already awash with sequels, remakes and comic-book adaptations, and adding old films to the slate squeezes original films out of the picture.

If they keep up this reliance on tent-pole releases, there just won't be enough screens to spread their fortunes over a wider base of properties with more modest expectations. Subscribe to continue. Mark Sappenfield. Our work isn't possible without your support.

Digital subscription includes: Unlimited access to CSMonitor. The Monitor Daily email. No advertising. Cancel anytime. Copy link Link copied. Renew subscription Return to the free version of the site. We logged you out. Instead, it was all a bit of a best-forgotten mess. Notably, the assorted home releases you can buy today of Harry Potter all omit the 3D footage. Between films six and seven, though, Avatar happened. And that was powered in large part by the premium it attracted for its 3D ticket price.

As such with a fresh interest in 3D and the chance of making some extra cash, studios were tumbling over themselves to quickly convert anything they had to take advantage. To this day, Clash Of The Titans remains the poster child for cynical use of 3D, with the process if anything detracting from the film rather than adding to it.

Ad — content continues below. The stench of that work certainly had ramifications. The problem, though, was that the decision to try and add 3D to the whole film was made fairly late in the day.