What movies should you see in 3D

[Aerozord]

This is a general question, alot of 3D movies dont really get anything more out of them being 3D, but others its put to great use and is worth the extra effort. So I'm asking what movies are better in 3D?

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

None. Or at least, none that I've yet to encounter.

Everybody raved about Avatar being the best thing to appear in 3d and how it was so much better in 3d than in 2d, I disagree. I saw it in both forms, and in 3d at the start in the human centric areas it was off-putting, with consoles and workstations in the base being very obviously on different levels and looking flat, in the jungle scenes that followed it looked better due to being able to have vegetation and such on multiple levels, but after a while you get used to it there and simply stop noticing, and the only other 2 instances where it is noticable after that are when the insane general dude is firing into the camera for about a split second and the almost equally as short moment when one of those flying pteranadon things bites a guy and pulls him out of an aircraft during the final battle.

That's it. That is literally the extent of the raved about, so-awesome-you-have-to-see-this-movie and its 3d; awkward and off-putting, moderately nice, blink and you'll miss it action scenes that don't actually add anything by being in 3d anyway. Whoo fucking hoo.

Don't even get me started on Thor or that terrible Clash of the Titans thing that I got dragged to see either. Or the extortionate prices to see these movies in 3d. Or the pain that comes from wearing those awful 3d glasses (even worse when you already wear glasses anyway).

[akaSM]

You really have to see Ironman helmet's HUD in The Avengers in 3D; it looked pretty nice and, reminded me of the HUD in Metroid Prime. Avoid the rest of the film, it looks dark and terrible overall.

[mauve]

Pixar's UP was quite beautiful in 3d, but was so in a way where the 3d was a tool to make the landscape look nicer, rather than a cheap jumpscare trick.

And I might be heavily biased, but seeing Jurassic Park on IMAX 3d was amazing. Although I don't know if that was actually due to the the 3d or just hearing the T-Rex noise in glorious IMAX surround sound.

[Shyria Dracnoir]

And I might be heavily biased, but seeing Jurassic Park on IMAX 3d was amazing. Although I don't know if that was actually due to the the 3d or just hearing the T-Rex noise in glorious IMAX surround sound.

Similar but not related to the 3D, I think Godzilla 2014 benefits the most out of recent releases with regards to seeing it on a theater screen and with theater sound. It's such a major factor to grasping the monster's presence onscreen that I'm actually concerned about how well the film will transition to home viewing.

[Azisien]

None. Well, Gravity was all right, I guess. None.

I do like IMAX theaters, and anything that comes to IMAX also comes with 3D, so it's an annoyance I simply have to put up with. It can feel free to die any day now.

[RickZarber]

My general rule of thumb is, if it was filmed in native 3D (ie, with a dual camera system), yes, if it was post-converted, no. Also my rule of thumb for buying Blu-ray editions. I always check realorfake3d.com (http://realorfake3d.com/) beforehand.

Exceptions exist, like hybrids: the live action elements of, say, Pacific Rim and Gravity were shot 2D and then post-converted, but all of the CG elements in those movies were rendered in native 3D. So that still counts in my mind.

And I've broken the rule a few times, yeah, either out of other interests (like Mauve, I really wanted to see and hear Jurassic Park on the big screen!), or because someone I was seeing it with really wanted to see it in 3D, or because buying a BD with the 3D copy was the only way to get certain other features (Avengers, I'm looking at you here...)