Home Will DOCTOR STRANGE finally make 3D worthwhile?

Will DOCTOR STRANGE finally make 3D worthwhile?

3 min read


I’ll be completely honest with you, I do not enjoy watching 3D movies. And I know I’m not in a minority here. Firstly, it’s the extra price tag which is a gripe but also I find very few films actually add anything of value with 3D to justify it. Secondly, I don’t like the way it forces the director into making certain shots which look great for 3D, but do nothing for the actual film. And while I’m still skeptical, I’m hopeful that Marvel has been listening and that Doctor Strange will be one that finally uses the format correctly.


Ever since Avatar came on board and made mega millions in the format, movie studios have been jumping on-board and turning as many movies as they can into 3D extravaganzas, even if it never needed them. Avatar did something incredible and unique with the format, but Cameron particularly catered for it in the way he shot it that made 3D a more worthwhile experience while still focusing on the story in this direction. Since then, I pretty much have not experienced a single film that I felt was worth the extra cost and normally just book a 2D ticket, because I’m here to watch a movie not a gimmick.

Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige discussed the use of 3D with Collider and how Doctor Strange is looking to do something different with the format:


Some people look at 3D like a tool, like Atmos or IMAX, it’s a storytelling tool. And sometimes it can feel like ‘Oh, that tool was simply put on that movie so they could charge $8 more. And I think that’s where you get reactions like ‘Oh, c’mon.” There are other movies like Guardians [of the Galaxy] and Doctor Strange, that will be utterly enhanced in 3D.

There are sequences of the film that 3D is actually necessary to tell the dimensional story that is happening, through visuals. And we’re now finding ourselves in VFX reviews going, ‘Okay we know this is perfect for 3D, this is built for 3D, but the stories gotta work in 2D so how do we adjust it so it still works in 2D?’ But the 3D is going to be amazing.

And I agree wholeheartedly with him – the format should be used as a storytelling device and that adds something to the cinematic experience. It sounds like Feige and director Scott Derrickson have the right idea with this film and I’m hoping they get it right. Doctor Strange will be littered with a lot of bizarre effects and multi-dimensional storytelling as it looks to expand the Marvel Universe into a Multiverse and if they can visually show this, it would be a cinematic triumph and finally give people a reason to see something in three dimensions. I’m still skeptical, but let’s hope they can back up their words with a winning product.


Feige went on to say that 3D versions of the Doctor Strange trailer that was recently shown at Comic-Con will be findings its way to 3D movies in the coming weeks. So we are likely to know soon if it really will add value to the film or not through some of its sequences. However, I’m unlikely to book a 3D ticket till then, so its probably not going to help me. So if you do happen to see it in 3D, please let us know if it is worth it or not.

Will you watch Doctor Strange in 3D or stick to the cheaper 2D format?

Last Updated: August 2, 2016


  1. Darren Peach

    August 2, 2016 at 21:36

    Cynical much ? If memory serves me, Avatar was a watershed moment in the evolution of 3d. I guess if you review films for a living, It will get old…


    • Hammersteyn_hates_Raid0

      August 2, 2016 at 22:56

      I believe it’s a fad to hike ticket prices. Also the 3D effects, while nice, has still a ways to go. Unless we get to use really, really cheap glasses in our theatres.


      • Darren Peach

        August 2, 2016 at 23:41

        LOL. Yeah, But it had to start somewhere, And I don’t go to movies much these days so it’s still fairly novel. Too pricey, smartphones and plastic wrappers..


    • Viking Of Science

      August 4, 2016 at 08:38

      That it might have been, but the movie itself, regardless of technical achievement was little more than Dances With Wolves with less Kevin Costner, and more Smurfs.


      • Darren Peach

        August 4, 2016 at 09:18

        Which would you rather watch, Dances with Wolves or Avatar ? I like Mechs so Avatar does it for me.


        • Viking Of Science

          August 4, 2016 at 11:18

          That’s Like Saying you prefer the Psycho remake, because you liked Vince Vaughn performance.


          • Darren Peach

            August 4, 2016 at 11:37

            Nope. That comparison does not work. James Cameron vs Costner….. Cameron is a visionary and Costner likes acting in countless sports films. The only respectable film Costner ever did was Dances with Wolves. I can take it a step further and compare Dances with Wolves to Fern Gully. You know what, Never mind. This is stupid. Viking of Science ? Avatar = Sci Fi ! Common dude.

          • Viking Of Science

            August 4, 2016 at 13:46

            It’s a perfect Comparison, Both Costner and Cameron Stopped making anything REMOTELY good in the early 90s… Name the Cameron GREATS, they’re all from the 80 to early 90s. You Cannot with a straight face say AVATAR is right up there with the likes of T2 and The Abyss… And As for Costner, All I’ll say is “Waterworld”

          • Darren Peach

            August 4, 2016 at 14:06

            I guess I am a little more forgiving then.

        • geel slang

          August 4, 2016 at 12:10

          Dances with Wolves, its a much better movie than Avatar.


          • Darren Peach

            August 4, 2016 at 12:58


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Action-packed new Shang-Chi trailer shows off the Ten Rings in battle

A brand new trailer for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings shows us the revamped or…