To 3D or not to 3D? (I haven't seen this yet.)

Thanks. I don't buy the whole "immersive" 3D where they claim that depth makes the movie feel better. Wearing glasses (which I don't usually do) sort of cancels out any immersive feel for me. I'll stick to 2D ;)

There is an imax about 1 hour away from me. I prefer V-Max, which is a stadium with great seats and atmos surround sound.

I saw 'War for the planet of the apes' this year and it is a post-production 3D. They did manage a few shots which had very impressive depth, but otherwise it was a pop-up book. The only actual 3D shot movie released this year was Transformers: The Last Knight, which I saw in 3D and enjoyed.

3D in movies filmed with 3D cameras still sucks if all they do is use it for depth. 3D in all three Hobbit movies sucked. 3D in Tron Legacy sucked.

I have TFA and R1 3D blue rays. The coolest 3D on both discs is on the menu screens....

Predator got a remarkably good 3D conversion, I was surprised.

Thor: Ragnarok looked amazing in 3D, like it was planned that way and shot that way. It was probably the best looking conversion I've ever seen... Although I'd have to compare it with Titanic and Jurassic Park since they both had a "full conversion" done with complete 3D modeling of objects in the scenes. Titanic was the first to get that treatment, and it's so comprehensively that it almost needs a new term, since it technically is 3D once the work is finished. They literally lay the movie frames over the objects that they model, treating the image like a texture.

Regular conversions are getting a lot better but obviously they're still not up to par with native 3D, and I tend to avoid them unless it's a big-budget movie that can afford state of the art work.