That is the last time I follow the herd.
If Avatar and Gravity are examples of how 3D is best used: f**k it. It's a waste of money (and probably your eyes).
There was nothing different about Gravity to any other 3D film, other than that, as most visuals were backed by the blackness of space, the effect was more pronounced.
It doubt it made the movie any more or less impressive than if it had been seen in 2D.
I will say, though, that it'd be worth watching on an IMAX screen. Just seems made for that.
For example, Avatar didn't look amazing because it was in 3d, it just looked amazing and it happened to be in 3d.
Most entertaining thing is that technologically or effect wise, its only a minor improvement over the old blue-red glasses concept.
The first paragraph:
"The 3D diorama effect was kind of essential here, because it’s a film in a setting where people are literally thin slices floating on a plane of nothingness. It created strong contrasts between Bullock and the stars, debris and earth, and even the thumb-printed glass of the helmet and the actor’s faces. There’s one moment where a space station, a person, and the Earth are all in frame, separated by hundreds of miles, and all perfectly in focus because of a lack of atmospheric distortion. The 3D made that distance come alive in a way it can’t in 2D. It’s about gulfs, impossible blank gulfs, and that’s why it’s one of the only truly essential uses of 3D I’ve seen yet. About the only other one I can think of is Cave of Forgotten Dreams, which used it to bring out distances of millimeters of depth on a wall. Seems like 3D is at its best when it’s working with the very small or the very large."
And with the unbelieveably bad sound editing, I was constantly covering my ears. So I was bleeding from the eyes and ears by the end.
3d in gravity was awesome.. specially when the station started to spin...
Nothing like ducking and dodging asteroids wising by your freaking head.