Jax wrote:
Reverend wrote:
^Indeed and at least they did something interesting and imaginative with the 3D, which is more than you can say of most 3D films of recent years.
|
I thought the 3D was dreadful (no pun intended). The film had no need for it and it did affect ticket sales IMO since 3D costs more and the 2D selections were very very limited. |
That would confirm my suspicion about 3D being a catch-22: Filming in 3D allows small-budget pictures to get "free" funding, but it means
really poor sales if it's not a well-known IP.