The best testament to how bad the 3D conversion for Clash of the Titans is is how many people have either mentioned it to me or have written about it themselves. I'm not talking about a bunch of movie geeks in an echo chamber, either. Just scanning through status updates and texts last weekend told the tale. People who I know never read about movies and who have no idea what the difference is between a film converted to 3D and a film that was actually shot in 3D were complaining about how they had just paid an extra $5 to see a movie that looked, to put it kindly, like a pop-up book. It was the first time I can recall people actively regretting having seen a movie in 3D over 2D.
Now I'm not going to be foolish enough to think Warner Brothers and other studios are listening to these complaints - Clash still set a record for highest opening grosses on Easter weekend (take that, Scary Movie 4!), after all, so as long as WB sees dollar signs they're not going to slow down on their charge to convert all of their major properties to 3D - but I am curious if Clash will be the turning point when audiences start to realize that the Avatar honeymoon is over and that normal 2D may be worth more than bad 3D.
I think we'll soon start to hear even more word of mouth discussing whether or not film Y's 3D is worth the extra premium. It's already begun in the film blogosphere, my favorite example being sci-fi author John Scalzi's "Is Fake 3D the Cheap Colorization of the 21st Century?", but I think once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the next big victim of WB's gold rush, gets closer to release the conversation will be at its peak. My question is, how involved do you think studios should be in that conversation?