THOR 2D vs. THOR 3D. Which Should You See?

<I>THOR 2D</I> vs. <I>THOR 3D</I>. Which Should You See?

After seeing THOR in 3D when it was released last week, I went to see the movie again today in 2D. Which is the better option? Hit the jump for my take...

If there's anything Clash of the Titans proved, it's that hastily converting a movie into 3D in order to make a little more at the box office is never a good idea. Then, you have something like The Green Hornet with a great conversion, but no real point to it being there. And finally, there's a movie like Avatar, which just wouldn't really be watching at all without slapping on a pair of 3D specs. So, which category does the latest movie from Marvel Studios fall? It's hard to say, but as I discovered today, Thor is a much better movie in 2D.

As I mentioned in my review last Monday, the 3D conversion is a good one and the only real criticism I could lay on it is that it caused some of the darker, faster paced scenes to appear a little blurry and hard to follow. For the most part, it looked good, especially in scenes set in Asgard or some of the later action packed moments. The problem was, it did very little to add to the experience. Just because it didn't look bad doesn't mean it was good after all. It's hard to justify spending the extra few pounds, or dollars, they ask of you when it in fact doesn't actually benefit you in any way. Thor was not filmed in 3D and so there are no scenes specifically inserted for the format. (you won't see Mjolnir being thrown out of the screen here) While that's no necessarily a bad thing, the lack of gimmicks like that left me wondering why it was ever converted. Money is of course the answer, and if the extra cash raked in at the box office helps ensure a sequel, I can live with it.

Now, the 2D Thor experience is a far superior one. The lengthy fight scene featuring the Frost Giants in the first third of the film was much, much easier to make out and Asgard looked just as stunning. This clarity, specifically in the aforementioned darker scenes, was a bonus throughout and nowhere mire significant than in Odin's chamber. Was that really the [SPOILER] [SPOILER] I spotted? Hmm...maybe! There were plenty of other things I noticed too, especially in the background and during the action. It was like the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. Everything just looked sharper and generally better. The thing is, Marvel hires directors like Jon Favreau and Kenneth Branagh because they don't need to include the gimmicky effects I've mention above. Not when they're hiring talent like them. And just as Iron Man 2 was perfectly enjoyable in 2D last year, the same cam be said of Thor and more than likely Captain America: The First Avenger too.

If you like 3D movies, go and see Thor in that format. It's a good conversion and apart from a few extra bucks, it won't cost you anything., I can promise you that you'll be losing NOTHING by seeing the movie in plain 'ol 2D. I both think its the best option and preferred the experience as I really do believe the conversion was an unnecessary one, but at the end of the day, it'll all come down to personal taste. Either way, You're still seeing a damned good movie.

Click HERE to read my review of THOR!

With an all star cast which includes Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Anthony Hopkins as Odin, Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Thor is out now in the UK and will be released shortly after in the US on May 6, later this year!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Posted By:
Josh Wilding
Member Since 3/13/2009
Filed Under "Thor" 5/3/2011
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
1 2
thunderforce - 5/3/2011, 1:27 PM
I will probably be seeing this many times both ways anyway .
FanBoyBlack - 5/3/2011, 1:28 PM
Thank you! This is EXACTLY the information I was looking for.

I will see it in 2D first.
Jimdlux - 5/3/2011, 1:28 PM
Ghostfire - 5/3/2011, 1:29 PM
Nice.. I'll be seeing it in 2D maybe i'll see it 3D later. Thanks for your input.
YourMomNaked - 5/3/2011, 1:29 PM
Thanks for the heads up, Josh! I'll likely take my son this weekend and I'd rather not spend an arm and a leg for the 3-D. I'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbit in the 3-D format, but only because the 48fps and shouldn't have the eye strain ;D

RexDartEskimoSpy - 5/3/2011, 1:30 PM
Thanks for the comparison. I had no interest in seeing Thor in 3D, but it's good to hear from someone who's seen both.

Of course, this was really just an excuse to brag that you've seen it twice already, you lousy foreign bastard... ;^)
Comedian03 - 5/3/2011, 1:30 PM
I'd prefer to see it in 2D but unfortunately my theater is only showing it in 3D so that'll have to do until it comes out on DVD.
ManThing - 5/3/2011, 1:32 PM
I'll see it in 3D the first time, but regular 2D the rest of the times.

I know I will see it at least three times. ;)
Theo1Trooper - 5/3/2011, 1:34 PM
i jus want to see it lol dont matter 2 me
Otcet - 5/3/2011, 1:35 PM
I saw Thor in 3D, I think it would be better if you se it in 2D, Why?....because at the begining is a big battle LOTR type and is blurry and dark and very fast you cant see who is who. The best option 2D
AC1 - 5/3/2011, 1:36 PM
I saw it in 3D and it was still enjoyable, but for the first time watching a 3D film in the cinema, it actually did cause some strain on my eyes, specifically in the horse riding on bifrost scene, which was extremely blurry.
But, I went to see it in 3D because I can't watch it in 3D at home, so it's the only chance I have to watch 3D films :)
Seejay - 5/3/2011, 1:38 PM
3d in the cinema. 2d countless times at home in the future. :)

Actually, even though Thor was converted to 3d, it was really great in 3d. I never would have thought. The technique for conversion must have improved during the last year or so ..

Also, Thor was epic, it was really great! The film rivals Iron Man 1, no doubt. Acctually imo. Thor is the greatest Marvel-film yet.
aishiteru - 5/3/2011, 1:38 PM
I think 3d takes to much away from the movie and makes you more amazed with the fact that it's 3d and not a good movie. take avatar for instense, everybody was praising it calling it the best movie ever and in reallity it (to me anyway) it was only meh, kind of a starwars rip-off.
jazzman - 5/3/2011, 1:39 PM
everyone should watch it in 2D trust me guys

Fogs - 5/3/2011, 1:39 PM
Next time I'll watch it 3D, since I've seen it 2D.
HelaGood - 5/3/2011, 1:41 PM
great article Josh!!!!!!!

i dont like 3d personally
ill see it in 2d
Ancar - 5/3/2011, 1:42 PM
The 3D version is a crap! Spend less and watch it on 2D.
Frostbite - 5/3/2011, 1:43 PM
@jazzman agreed, the 3D added nothing but a hole in my wallet.
ThisFan - 5/3/2011, 1:46 PM
I dont like 3D and I dont want to see anything in 3D. I dont care if its no extra charge.
axiouz - 5/3/2011, 1:56 PM
It was darker in 3d, with some blurry scenes and couldn't see some things which were dark already >.>
axiouz - 5/3/2011, 1:56 PM
It was darker in 3d, with some blurry scenes and couldn't see some things which were dark already >.>
InFamouslyCool - 5/3/2011, 2:02 PM
how about you don't see it in 3D and save yourself the trouble of having your eyes hurt, and getting a headache.

everything sucks in 3D
jazzman - 5/3/2011, 2:03 PM

the 3D was not bad but not worth spending your money on. when i saw the movie i paid for 2D but the screen and sound was f**ked up so the manager at the cinema told me and the others who paid for 2D can watch it in 3D no extra cost. but yeah the 3D is just to put a hole in your wallet.

so i guess everyone should watch Captain America in 2D
DaenerysTargaryen - 5/3/2011, 2:04 PM
If my theatre is showing it in 2D then I'll see it in 2D *which I want*. I dont care much for 3D unless you HAVE to see it in 3D
RedeyeJedi - 5/3/2011, 2:05 PM
I don't like gimmicks so I don't watch movies in 3D.
ClarkFarley2012 - 5/3/2011, 2:06 PM
Hey thanks for the heads up guy. I was debating which on which one to see. I'll see the 2D one for now!
ABLEE337 - 5/3/2011, 2:07 PM
Thanks, Josh. Was thinking about seeing this in 3D, but I really don't like 3D movies unless it's fully generated by computers because they seem to push the effects better in CGI then film. I guess it's because they have more control when it's CGI. Gonna stick to 2D, but I wouldn't mind checking out a porn in 3D. Hehehe.
Correction, make that a lesbian porn, I don't want some dude's shlong coming towards my face in 3D.
jazzman - 5/3/2011, 2:10 PM
the truth is anything that been converted in 3D is not great.

plus Hollywood is using the 3D hype to make easy money out of the general public. Hollywood studios has also been hit with the recession so the best way to make money to make more converted 3D movies.
spectre88 - 5/3/2011, 2:11 PM
See it in both formats, but see it in 2d first.

I saw it in the dark and semi-blurry 3d format first. As entertaining as it was, I don't think I got to enjoy it as much as if I could have see things clearly in 2d.
SpitfireOverThames - 5/3/2011, 2:11 PM
Having seen the film now 5 times (2x 3-D, 3x 2-D), I can recommend wholeheartedly that 2-D is the better format to see the film. The problem for me was that the film is already dark in the first third of the film; add to that the darkness of the 3-D glasses and you can see why I recommend 2-D. I actually was able to notice details that I missed while watching it in 3-D.

Still, there are some great scenes within the film that look great in 3-D. So if you're going to see the film only once, see it in 2-D. If more than once, see it in 3-D at least once.

I think Marvel generally dropped the ball with the 3-D conversion (time will tell for CA: FIRST AVENGER). They really should've gone for filming it from the beginning in that format. Still, although not the best, the 3-D is fair to good.

~Sean, London UK
ClarkFarley2012 - 5/3/2011, 2:11 PM
Hey thanks for the heads up guy. I was debating which on which one to see. I'll see the 2D one for now!
InFamouslyCool - 5/3/2011, 2:15 PM
where the hell do people live where their only option is 3D LOL I bet a 3D ticket in the midwest is like $10
113 - 5/3/2011, 2:22 PM
I hope I can see it in IMAX 2D...That would be ideal and best of both worlds. If the only way to see it in IMAX is 3D then i might have to bite the bullet.

I don't watch grand epic movies like this in regular format anymore, but me IMAX or nothing.
JaySchluffy - 5/3/2011, 2:24 PM
I saw it in 2D (one of the very few my cinema were showing compared to the HUNDRED 3D showings. And I make a point to only ever see 2D if it has been converted. No thanks guys.
Amazo - 5/3/2011, 2:29 PM
Totally agree! I much prefered it in 2D :)
Amazo - 5/3/2011, 2:56 PM
A good friend of mine put it this way:
'Can you think of a single movie that you have loved in your life that you would like any more if it was in 3D?'
I honestly couldn't think of one.Not that I'd like more.
3D turns movies into theme park rides and I think story suffers because of it :)
KeithM - 5/3/2011, 3:11 PM
I agree with this. I've seen it once in 3D and twice in 2D and things are clearer in the latter.

I'm glad I saw it in 3D though having said that, as some of the effects and vistas do benefit a little from the added 'depth', but, as Josh says, not enough to make it a must-see-in-3D film like Avatar.
Sparrowsabre7 - 5/3/2011, 3:35 PM
I agree, I regret wasting extra money on 3D. Ah well, will make my first time watching the blu ray all the sweeter =D

@ELgUaSoN I c wut u did thar
marvel72 - 5/3/2011, 3:38 PM
i watched the film in 2-d & it cost me £8.25,how much more money is watching it in 3-d ?

personally i'm not that bothered by 3-d,i'm just grateful i saw the film.
EntertainmentAddict - 5/3/2011, 3:44 PM
Thanks for the great article. I have wondered on MANY films why they bother to go 3D beyond money. Most of them have NOTHING come out of the screen and just give extra dimension in the screen. If I am shelling out the extra $$$, it better look like I can reach out and touch it or need to duck out of its way. JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH is about the ONLY 3D film that has done that for me.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.