Okay so this one is probably going to be short because I don't have a whole lot to say on this topic but there are some thoughts I just want to share that might help future 3D movies. So I understand that 3D movies are all the rage with film makers now and that every big movie either gets filmed or converted to 3D just for the extra kick. However there are many ways that 3D can straight up ruin a movie. These are just some of my thoughts on what fits and what breaks a 3D movie for me.
My first thought is on 3D conversion. Just don't do it. There isn't a lot of good things to say about converting a movie to 3D. I have yet to see this pulled off successfully and it just seems like a quick cash grab by the studio and everyone knows it. If the movie was not filmed in 3D it's obvious that the film was never intended for it and it is just going to hurt the film and stall the release and it wont make much of a difference in the end. Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender are perfect examples of 3D conversion at it's worst. Not to say these movies would have done significantly better without the 3D but it makes the average movie goer pay more for a ticket for less of an experience. I personally always choose the 2d screen on a movie that I know was converted to 3D. I would suggest just avoid converting a movie and just continue making the movie the way it was intended and if you want to do 3D just save it for the next project and film it that way.
Now there are different ways to make 3D work or just totally break it. The one thing I would have to say on what to do when making a 3D movie is try to avoid making it too obvious that the movie is 3D. Don't blatantly throw giant axes or weapons on the audience's faces like "Hey look at our big 3D object, isn't it cool?" No it isn't. This is a good way to kill the movie experience and totally take my mind out of the film. This is something that can work if done well. Tron Legacy I think pulled this off well by having someone get derezzed with an identity disc in a kind of in your face style but they did it in a way that seemed artful and cinematic and not like a cheap way to show off the 3D. Resident Evil Afterlife however just has the Axe Man throw his giant axe right in your face. Avatar was the perfect example of subtlety in 3D as there is not one in your face shot in the entire movie. The first kind of 3D experience you get in that film is two water drops floating in zero gravity. It looks nice and doesn't feel like they are showing off at all and it totally relates to the story. Another good section of 3D in Avatar is in the scenes walking through the jungle it actually looks like leaves are brushing past your face and bugs are flying by. It was really well done and actually gave the sense of walking through the jungle with them. Transformers Dark of the Moon, no matter what anyone's thoughts on the movie, had some of the best 3D for an action movie and was implemented very well. The most obvious aspect of this movie is there is more slow motion than in the previous films but to me it never felt like it was a way to show off the 3D but more of a way to show off the action in the film.
The one thing I feel gets neglected when 3D movies are being made is how are these films going to translate to 2D. I think this is an important factor because it can make or break the replay value of the film. If a movie is filled with a bunch of in your face moments that are only going to work when watching it in 3D the movie is not going to work on the 2D format. It could be argued that we have 3D TVs now, however they are not affordable enough that everyone has them yet. If we make it to a point where 3D TVs are more affordable for everyone and maybe don't require glasses then this may not be that big of a deal. As it stands now though not enough people own 3D TVs to make this a common practice. The point is, think about how these movies are going to look in 2D for now until 3D is more affordable and practical.