Director Ridley Scott is breathing down the neck of executives at Universal to get them to approve making a 3D version of his new $200 million epic, “Robin Hood,” according to one person close to the project.

Maybe Sex and the City 2 will be in 3D too.

And how about reviving the "insert something" Movie spoofs...by making them 3D?!?!?!

bleh, if 3-D was not originally intended than dont waist your time, and 200m for a film about that bastard Robin Hood, is Scott on drugs .

universal has been wasting their money on movies that don't deserve huge budgets.

Now we only need John Waters to remake PINK FLAMINGOS in 3D.

Thanks for the nightmare's Price!

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Immersion-3D is the quintessential progression in the movie-going experience. First there was picture, then sound, then dialogue, then colour, then surround sound, then CGI, and now an almost tangible sense of depth and breadth to all on-screen objects. It elevates the sense of spectacle and audience involvement and changes the very concept of going to the theater.

It's simply the fact it's a change that's the problem, not the nature of the change itself. I think I went into this when I was explaining how the unique appearance of the Na'vi would ultimately help the Avatar brand. As human beings we are naturally geared to feel aversion to change, which on an evolutionary level has aided us as a species to develop new logical concepts on those previously which are well established, and so avoid being locked into a conceptual evolutionary plateau. This explains all social prejudices, and explains why you'd rather not eat snails.

Given the different experiential nature of stereoscopic 3D from the standard medium, it is initially a distraction for many people. But when you break it down logically, that it would be a continual distraction doesn't make any sense. For the sake of it being the most recent release, and the first live action 3D film of a major scale, I'll use Avatar as an example. Compared to the 'red & blue glasses' 3D of the 50's it's infinitely more relevant and subtle. As said above, it's simply a sense of depth and breadth to objects, which when you think about it is hardly invasive to the experience. On the contrary, it's actually more inclusive from the viewers perspective. It just takes some getting used to.

I agree that it should never be used as a major promotional component of a film. It should only be used to amplify the qualities already present, which is exactly what it is used for with Avatar.

Perhaps it's more suited to Tim Burton fantasies than Clint Eastwood melodramas, but that still indicates a ripe future for 3D.

It's WOM is solely due to visuals. I agree.

TDK's WOM was solely due to Ledger's performance.