"Believe me or don't, but don't say I didn't warn you. I actually took the glasses off half an hour into the movie and, while blurry, it was a vast improvement." - Sheenan87 (IMDb)

I like my skull piles in two dimensions, thank you.

Of course I don't always believe things I read on the internet, especially when it involves reviewing movies, books, bars, restaurants, etc., but the above quote is almost unanimously reinforced. Every comment I've seen about the new Conan movie, which came out today, mentions the poor use of 3D. In my last blog post, I briefly mentioned that I was unimpressed with the use of 3D in recent years, but I wrongly assumed that Conan would be palpable in the format, seeing as it's an action movie about a barbarian smashing heads. Let the blood fly, right? Wrong.

I instinctively pay an extra couple of dollars for 3D, and was going to do the same for Conan, until I read this piece by Josh Tyler on Cinema Blend. Here is a man who clearly understands 3D cinema, knows what works, what doesn't, and even created a rating system to determine if you should see a film in 2D or 3D. Conan received a 16 out of 35. He strongly recommends that you see it in 2D. You can read the ratings for yourself, but all I needed to hear was that Conan's predominantly wooded and cavernous sets are too dark, dusty, and hazy for 3D, which they added post-production. I'm making it a new personal rule that I'll only put on the glasses if the movie was filmed purposely for 3D.

The decision is up to you, but do not buy your tickets until you read the aforementioned review. If you see the movie in 3D, post your comments below, and don't forget to enter our contest for limited edition comics signed by Roy Thomas.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.