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

DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines
From The Web