True, that was my first time, but aside from the fun, party-game shtick of it all, I don't see the point. Does 3-D really enhance the cinematic quality of film, OR, does it actually subtract from the art of it by simply making it a more marketable form of entertainment?
The thing is, when I took my glasses off and caught Coraline in a sequence of typical 2-D, the colors were vibrant, loud, and more alive than when the images were able to lift themselves off the screen. I'd put my glasses back on, and it was like a shade had been placed over the lens of the projector. In my mind, Coraline lost much of it's visual grandeur in 3-D mode.
Yes, I'm sure there is plenty technical wizardry that goes into turning an animated film like Coraline into a 3-D experience, but much like a David Fincher movie, technical wizardry doesn't necessarily equal impressive art.
Nor does it automatically make for enjoyable entertainment.
Before Coraline began, we got hit with 3-D trailers for other upcoming 3-D features, but we also were told that the NBA would soon be available in 3-D. Um... please, please no! Actually, I don't care about basketball, but I could live my whole life without ever seeing a baseball or football game in 3-D. High-def is nice, now please STOP! If networks can give viewers the option of watching games in either 2-D or 3-D, then fine, but I really hope 3-D never becomes standard.
As for film and the upcoming 3-D surge? Well, I won't jump to any conclusions based on one viewing of one animated film... but I'm very skeptical, and worried, at the moment. Do people like James Cameron see 3-D as "the next step" for cinema, or just the business of movies? I mean, certainly someone like Henry Selick isn't fine with his movie not looking as nice with glasses on, right? I guess it's shamefully possible that he doesn't.