Lance Williams said "The 3D-ness isn't the kind that boasts
pop-in-your-face images. Williams admits that would be silly for something like
"Charly." "This is the immersion 3D that draws the viewer into the
story rather than push the story out," Williams said. "This isn't
your father's 3D or what you're used to. It's not effects 3D.
It's more like the 3D used in "Avatar." I think it would look cool.
Besides the fact that 3D gives me a headache, so I won't be seeing it...Why in
the world would a movie like this need to be done in 3D!? Someone has very
little commonsense if they think this will make any kind of business. Honestly
is it going to make me cry more if it's in 3d?! This is not the sort of movie
you go to for 3D.
Did Ms. Haddock write this story for April 1, and her editor accidentally ran it
today?OK, it makes sense to add scenes to the movie to improve the
story, but 3D? Seriously? How does 3D improve this particular film at all?I will consider seeing the improved movie, but only if there's a theater
showing it in 2D.