20thmaine  | 23 May 2013 5:47 a.m. PST |
What would people suggest ? I'm not always so blown away by 3D, but find "very 3D" films (like the new take on The Great Gatsby) a bit irritating in 2D – so many of the cuts and camera angles are there just to make the 3D look good. |
| Coelacanth | 23 May 2013 5:54 a.m. PST |
For my money, 2D. I wear glasses, so the 3D glasses are annoying. Sometimes, I get a headache when the 3D objects are moving quickly. Ron |
| Old Slow Trot | 23 May 2013 6:32 a.m. PST |
I know that feeling, Coelacanth. |
| Pictors Studio | 23 May 2013 7:08 a.m. PST |
|
etotheipi  | 23 May 2013 7:12 a.m. PST |
2D. My wife can't do 3D (vision issues), and, honestly, I've never found it to be that cool. In fact, the only thing I appreciate about extended scenes designed to showcase the 3D effects are the opportunity to sneak to the bathroom while nothing important happens on screen. And I am a staunch advocate of only going to a theater for a big visual effect movie. |
| Sergeant Paper | 23 May 2013 7:56 a.m. PST |
Why bother? I reject the whole Abrams mock-Star Trek universe utterly, let it be cast unseen into the abyss to languish forever
so 2D or 3D doesn't really matter, IMO. |
| jpattern2 | 23 May 2013 8:11 a.m. PST |
2D. I have no problem with viewing 3D, but the slightly shaded glasses muddy and darken the picture, so I always go 2D. The scene with the Enterprise at the beginning of the movie might be jaw-dropping in 3D – it was certainly impressive in 2D – but not enough to justify the muddier picture and higher price. |
| richarDISNEY | 23 May 2013 8:38 a.m. PST |
Normally 3D for me. I never have 'headaches' or 'blurry' issues. In this case --- 0D. I didn't like the movie, too many 'shout outs', and wished I waited for netflix.
 |
Stronty Girl  | 23 May 2013 9:08 a.m. PST |
2D. The 3Dness of 3D movies wears off after about 15 minutes for me, so it is not worth the extra money. |
| Only Warlock | 23 May 2013 9:36 a.m. PST |
This was the best IMAX 3D I have seen. Did not seem artificial or "in your face". it really added to teh space shots and i thought it was extremely well done. |
| Norrins | 23 May 2013 9:36 a.m. PST |
I saw the movie in 3D and being honest wasn't blown away by the 3D. But then I still think the best 3D I've seen was in Dredd 3D. |
| Ron W DuBray | 23 May 2013 9:43 a.m. PST |
don't wast your money see it on a Tuesday for cheep and in 2D |
| kreoseus2 | 23 May 2013 10:33 a.m. PST |
2D or not 2D, that is the question. I wear glasses, so 2D for me. |
| jdpintex | 23 May 2013 11:11 a.m. PST |
I like IMAX 3D. I wear glasses and have no problems. But then again, I simply like going to the movies regardless of whether the movie is great, good, or meh. |
Patrick Sexton  | 23 May 2013 12:40 p.m. PST |
I like 3D (it would be hard to drive otherwise) but this is fine in 2D. And it is a very good,perhaps great movie. |
20thmaine  | 23 May 2013 3:40 p.m. PST |
Saw it in 2D – and I don't think it suffered at all. Liked it more than the last film – seemed to be aiming to please "the longtime fans" as well as be its own thing. Still not very keen on Kirk or the new rather tearful Spock (obviously more human than Vulcan in this alternate universe). I do hate the engine room though – all those huge coolant storage tanks and random piping – it looks very 20th century compared to the rest of the ship. Still – Sherlock Holmes is good, and it's basically his film so that's ok. |
| SECURITY MINISTER CRITTER | 23 May 2013 4:25 p.m. PST |
|
| SpaceCudet | 24 May 2013 2:27 a.m. PST |
In this case --- 0D. This. Very disappointing sequel. |
etotheipi  | 24 May 2013 5:13 a.m. PST |
I like 3D (it would be hard to drive otherwise)
except for in (almost) all the driving/flying/tactical combat video games. |