Originally Posted by Stuart C

I do believe the point of the article in The Register is to question the value people place on 3d. It's all very well stating that Shrek, Harry Potter, Alice et al have or are expected to do well, but is that because of 3d? Also, is it well enough? If Wikipedia is to be believed, the sequel to Superman Returns was cancelled despite S.R. doing quite well at the box office. The sequel was cancelled because it did not do well enough.

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------



I said it's done well.. It has. Unless you are using a different definition of well to me?

The movie studios making these in 3d must see some value in it seeing as it costs a fortune



I have checked BO numbers. See my post above. Some have done well. A lot haven't..