It is for the over seas markets. Even terrible movies in 3D make a ton more over seas just because they are 3d. I saw it in 3D as well just for the opening 5 minute clip from Captain America The Winter Solider.I am pretty sure the only reason any of the Marvel movies are in 3D is because of Disney anyways, it never has added anything to their movies.
This is how I feel about the film. I thought it was as good as IM1 or IM2. Definitely far better than the first Thor in my opinion.So that we can have the full spectrum of reviews and therefore not provide any decision making help at all, I want to say that this was the best Marvel film since Avengers. I would go so far as to say as good as Iron Man. To me, what added real tension to the movie was showing that Asgardians are mortal and can be killed. All of the characters had chemistry with each other and there were scenes that I actually felt nervous or sad. It's not often that movies do more than flash shiny things in front of me, so I am happy that there still is some storytelling in these Marvel movies. Fantastic movie, and even the wife liked it. Probably because of the wet Thor bath scene.
Playing at 3,841 locations, the second follow-up to The Avengers opened to an estimated $86.1 million. That's up 31 percent on the first Thor's $65.7 million, and is also the best start yet for a Marvel Cinematic Universe movie that doesn't feature Iron Man.
The Dark World's 31 percent improvement over the first Thor can largely be attributed to The Avengers, which helped raise the profile of Thor and his evil brother Loki (who was featured prominently in this movie's marketing). In comparison, Iron Man 3's bump over Iron Man 2 was a bit better (36 percent), though it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Iron Man 3 benefited from the addition of 3D premiums, whereas Thor: The Dark World actually had less 3D attendance than the original Thor (39 percent vs. 60 percent). Ultimately, Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 3 seem to have benefited equally from their connection to The Avengers.
It is worth noting that Thor 2's 3D figure (39 percent) is a bit of a disappointment. There was an expectation that Gravity helped improve audience perception of 3D, and Disney/Marvel attempted to piggyback on that by adding five minutes of April 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier in front of the 3D version of Thor 2. The unimpressive 3D share suggests moviegoers remain skeptical of the premium-priced format.
I do generally agree with this. The only reason I saw it in 3D was because I was forced to. Pretty much no theaters, even in Central London, were playing it, seriously. Gravity worked because of the slow nature and the color scheme. In other words, the 3D wasn't a "gimmick" as it is in most films, but more about immersion.Really they thought because Gravity was a must see in 3D due to it being conceptualized with it being in that format and it working flawless due to fucking floating around in space, it would bump some shitty post production 3D that has never worked for a comic book movie yet because it has been totally unnecessary. They need to get their heads out of their asses.
3D has worked for me in 4 movies and shockingly its because they made the film with it in mind and it enhanced the movie: Avatar, Tron, Prometheus, Gravity. Not all great movies but the 3D worked and added to the movie. So glad to see movie executives have no fucking clue or if they do have a clue about when it doesn't work then they are just a lot more evil then I thought.
Tom Hiddleston as LOKI at Comic-Con 2013 (Official-HD) - YouTubeJust got back from seeing it, and I'm basically going to echo everyone else, so I'll keep it brief:
It's good; better than Thor 1, maybe even one of the better Marvel movies, period.
Good action.
Cap cameo was awesome.
Loki stole the show.
See it. See it now.