3-D fail for 'Harry Potter'
October 8th, 2010
04:22 PM ET

3-D fail for 'Harry Potter'

It looks like the planned 3-D release of the "Harry Potter" grand finale (well, the first part at least) is kaput. A press release put out on Friday states, "Warner Bros. Pictures [owned by Time Warner, the owner of CNN] has made the decision to release 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1' in 2D, in both conventional and IMAX theaters, as we will not have a completed 3D version of the film within our release date window."

This will almost certainly be a disappointment for fans of the movies, especially those who have seen the last few in IMAX 3-D. The release goes on to say, "Despite everyone’s best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality."

Earlier "Potter" releases included several scenes in 3-D for IMAX theaters, but this time trailers and ads for the film promised the entire movie in 3-D, perhaps in response to the success of "Avatar" last year.

This news could conceivably boost Disney's "Tron Legacy" and "Tangled," DreamWorks' "Megamind" and 20th Century Fox's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and "Gulliver's Travels" during the holiday movie season. All five of these will be released in 3-D, with "Tron" becoming the high-profile 3-D release of the season.

At the same time, it's hard to imagine that too many people will skip out on one of the most anticipated movies of the year, simply because it will not be in 3-D; we think the "Potter" faithful will show up to theaters to see the beginning of his final adventure in any dimension.

But what do you think, "Potter" fans? Will this decision affect whether or not you'll go see the movie, and are you disappointed it won't be in 3-D?

soundoff (199 Responses)
  1. Bielizna Damska

    My partner and I stumbled over here from a different website and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to checking out your web page for a second time.

    December 19, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Pozycjonowanie Top

    Do you have a spam problem on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your situation; we have created some nice procedures and we are looking to exchange strategies with others, be sure to shoot me an email if interested.

    December 13, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
  3. marc

    actually it doesnt matter if HP will be released as a 3D film, the important thing is it will be released very soon and i cant wait to see it on the big screen πŸ™‚

    November 14, 2010 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
  4. marc

    it doesnt matter if it is not in 3D although its quit depressing.. but i wills till wacth the movie though!!!

    October 24, 2010 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Paddy Reagan

    There's another reason so many movies are offering 3-D versions–the advent of 3-D television which is and will be starving for content. Perhaps we'll soon see higher rental and purchase prices for DVDs: one tier for Blu-Ray, another for 3-D. Of course, with continuing consolidation of the entertainment industry companies such as Sony can add 3-D, make more money in theaters, more money from DVDs, and increase the sales of its 3-D TVs. And, to think that in the 1930's, in and effort to dissemble and discourage monopolies, it was illegal for movie makers to own distribution companies and theaters.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
  6. Jessica

    3-D makes me SICK I don't JUST mean headaches either. I get nauseous, dizzy and just ill feeling all over. It takes me hours to recover. I just pray they don't start releasing movies in 3-D only, with no 2-D option.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
  7. rey

    I am also glad it won't be on 3d... I'm tired of 3d movies and harry potter is one of my fave movies out there...

    October 11, 2010 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
  8. bobby

    No big deal to me. I always thought harry potter was a one-dimensional character anyway.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
  9. wayne the centrist

    GOOD!!! 3-D conversions SUCK. If the movie isn't shot in 3-D it shouldn't be in 3-D. It was only being converted so they could charge the extra admission. Sickens me. A lot of families can't even afford to take little Timmy to even a regular movie and now they are trying to fleece them for even more. SHAME!!!!!

    October 11, 2010 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
  10. Collin

    Good, I'm already sick of 3D.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
  11. John

    I will be a much bigger fan of 3-D movies when and if you don't have to wear the glasses.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
  12. Jane

    This decision will most definitely not affect my decision of whether or not I would like to see the movie. No matter what dimension it is in, I will still go out and see it.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:19 am | Report abuse |
  13. nash

    I'm sure warner is just trying to make more money by releasing the movie in 2D then releasing it in 3D three months later. I think its Greedy! I mean they're already making two movies out of the last book so they can double up the profits that way.

    October 11, 2010 at 10:10 am | Report abuse |
  14. sbnero

    oh, thank goodness. I dread the day there is no option BUT 3D.

    October 11, 2010 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
  15. kbam

    I have to agree with many of the posts here: The lack of 3D makes it *far* more likely that I'll watch this movie.

    October 11, 2010 at 9:44 am | Report abuse |
  16. Timmy

    3D is too many by, say, 1 D....

    October 11, 2010 at 9:35 am | Report abuse |
  17. Becca

    I'm so relieved! I would have seen it in 3-D if I had to because I am a HUGE fan (I always see it opening night), but I'm sick to death of 3-D technology. So I'm DELIGHTED that it will be in 2-D ... now my regular glasses won't be squashed on my face by the 3-D glasses that go over them and I won't have a headache at the end. Huzzah!

    October 11, 2010 at 9:32 am | Report abuse |
  18. Derek

    Actually, the plan is to make us pay for the 2D version upon release then 2 months later put it in 3D to sap us for another $16.00 each.

    October 11, 2010 at 9:24 am | Report abuse |
  19. Jenny

    I was planning to see it in 2D. I sure hope they don't go with a 1D release; those tend to fall flat.

    October 11, 2010 at 9:20 am | Report abuse |
  20. Jough

    I've always thought of the movie industry making a movie in #-D is like getting a tramp stamp tattoo. Sure, they might think it's cool, they might also think WE think it's cool. But in reality, we don't, and silently judge them for being trashy.

    3D: The tramp Stamp of the film industry.

    October 11, 2010 at 9:17 am | Report abuse |
  21. David

    Yeah wasnt planning on watching 3d any way either. i get headaches for eh stupid format. Glasses are annoying as heck to wear and its all for very minimal effect. 2D is so overblown. never even really cared for it as a kid either. Gimick notin more or less.

    October 11, 2010 at 8:53 am | Report abuse |
  22. Malfoy

    3D would give them higher box office $$$, so it's nice to hear that they would rather release on time then delay with jacked-up prices. Classy move Warner Bros

    October 11, 2010 at 8:51 am | Report abuse |
  23. BoyHowdie

    Feh, 3D is overrated, noone cares about 3D. how 'bout making the movie GOOD for a change and closer to the actual story and stop worry about the dumb effects.

    October 11, 2010 at 8:50 am | Report abuse |
  24. Gabor47

    The 2D-3D difference is about the same as black&white and color. It is one step closer to reality. I fail to see this emotional opposition to 3D. So people have to put on a glass. Big deal. Half of mankind eventually ends up wearing some kind of eyeglasses anyway.

    October 11, 2010 at 8:44 am | Report abuse |
  25. Ashley

    Even though the film will not be released in 3D I am still going to see the film. I am a huge Harry Potter fan and I haven't seen any of the other films in 3D so it's not a big deal to me.

    October 11, 2010 at 8:38 am | Report abuse |
  26. nedly

    I hate 3D. Why do they think everyone loves 3D?

    October 11, 2010 at 7:28 am | Report abuse |
  27. richard

    What a stupid comment by the stupid writer "This will almost certainly be a disappointment for fans of the movies, especially those who have seen the last few in IMAX 3-D". No one I know wants a 3D movie. The movies are excellent. Just release it already!

    October 11, 2010 at 6:54 am | Report abuse |
  28. Dan

    I hate 3d so I am glad to hear this.

    October 11, 2010 at 12:44 am | Report abuse |
  29. August Mitchell

    Fine by me. I wasn't going to see it if it were in 3D , so this is a benefit to me.

    October 10, 2010 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
  30. LorrenP

    I prefer 2D anyway and I'm a big fan, so I will still watch Harry Potter. They don't need to jump out of the screen because for me Harry Potter and his friends have already jumped out of the pages of the books .

    October 10, 2010 at 9:02 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Roger

    harry is HOt!!!

    October 10, 2010 at 7:50 pm | Report abuse |
  32. wnty

    love that idea

    Watch Online movies free

    October 10, 2010 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
  33. descendentoffrey

    I don't do 3D so it makes no difference to me, I'll still be there opening day.

    October 10, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
  34. Jdrack

    Don't care actually glad 3-D gives me a headache......won't stop anyone I know from watching it!!!!

    October 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
  35. jen

    3D completely blows! The movie hits theaters on november 11, 2010 and I will be one of the first ones in line to see it! I have seen every single movie so far and have read all the books. I can't wait to see these last 2 movies!

    October 10, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
  36. AJ

    Oy! always hate 3-d verison. My kids hate them. What is the points in that? Old fashioned type always works the best and classic! Sorry!

    October 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  37. Carmen

    I'm really glad its not being released in 3D personally i hate 3D the glasses are uncomfortable and my head hurts half way through the movie and then I dont even feel like watching it anymore. yah for no 3D.

    October 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Gitmonationnorth

    Hmmmm a boy witch riding around on a broom with a pencil like scepter.... What a RIVITING peice of entertainment....I would rather chew through a piece of tinfoil....2 hours of my life I will never ge back.

    October 10, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Kaylee

    I'm a huge Harry Potter fan and I personally can't STAND 3D. So I guess I don't really care πŸ™‚

    October 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Casey

    no 3D break my bleeding heart the up charge that is done for 3D has stopped my family of 6 from seeing lots of movies the kids think its so wonderful and their whining and complaining has ruined movie experiences when we don't go to the 3D version because we need the affordable. i understand the movie companies want people to want to go....but i think they are still loosing more in the end. yes i will see potter and no 3D is a blessing in disguise

    October 10, 2010 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Wonderful

    I am very happy that Harry Potter is NOT coming out in 3-D, I am looking forward to the film, don't need the 3-D.

    October 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
  42. judy

    hey. just read the book...use ur imagination

    October 10, 2010 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
  43. judy

    who is harry potter?

    October 10, 2010 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
  44. sandy

    Glad its not 3D. I prefer 2D!

    October 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
  45. potterlove

    no, i find 3D movies really annoying and distracting. My eyes hurt after a while. can't wait for the movie!

    October 10, 2010 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
  46. jon

    3d sux

    October 10, 2010 at 8:46 am | Report abuse |
  47. mumo

    I was a projectionist at a theatre for a year and I was never impressed with our two 3d projectors. How good it is is a factor of 1) the film itself, how it's made, 2) your theatre's equipment and calibration, and 3) your own individual physioligical response to it. Avatar was the only movie I ever saw that looked decent in 3d, and even then there were issues with our 3d projector. I tried to bring it to the attention of my employers but they didn't give a damn. The film industry need to retire this technology and start advancing holographic projection if they really want to enhance the visual experience.

    October 10, 2010 at 6:48 am | Report abuse |
  48. andy

    I hate 3D, those glasses suck major a$$. But i still love the harry potter movies.

    October 10, 2010 at 6:18 am | Report abuse |
  49. Eliut

    Well who cares about 3-D,,all I care is about watching Harry Potter,,can't wait

    October 10, 2010 at 4:55 am | Report abuse |
  50. Nick

    "Oh my poor wittle eyes hurt when things are in free dee." Do you keep your eyes closed all day or do you have some kind of special 'make everything look 2D' glasses for when you're out in the world where everything is, like, 3D?

    October 10, 2010 at 4:13 am | Report abuse |
  51. Justin

    Thank goodness! I prefer non 3D movies. Im a broke college kid- they always cost more for 3D movies. Also, I don't like how the dark 3D glasses make all of the film's color less vibrant. I'd see it either way as I'm a huge fan, but this story is good news for me! =]

    October 10, 2010 at 3:54 am | Report abuse |
  52. Rou

    3d is not a ploy its a way from keeping stupid jerks from pirating movies. They can't record a movie like that. If people didn't ruin it for everyone else not every movie would be in 3D

    October 10, 2010 at 1:29 am | Report abuse |
  53. hfhsfbx

    What the hell harry potter is already bad why do they have to make it worse

    October 10, 2010 at 1:07 am | Report abuse |
  54. granger

    Are you serious? 3D is little more than a gimmick – and really destroys a movie when done poorly.

    Good decision I say.

    October 9, 2010 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
  55. KodiakRider

    My plan was to see it in 2D first and then see the 3D to see what it was like. The fact it will not be in 3D doesn't bother me a bit. From all I've read retro fitted 3D movies aren't that good anyway.

    October 9, 2010 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Kimberly

    As a HP fan that's past her peek fan days, and a 3D enthusiast, I'll still see the 2D version. I like seeing the movies version, and i watched most of the HP films without it.

    October 9, 2010 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
  57. M-C

    3D is over-rated.

    October 9, 2010 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
  58. john

    The whole problem that I continue to have with 3D is that the continue to think that for it to seem real to me is that they must THROW Crap at me foe for the entire 90 min or more .. There is no nees for that I don't get stuff thrown at me all day long and don't need a movie to do it either. But Avatar seem to draw me into the screen instead of throw stuff out .. If more movies did that I might be more open .. If harry potter could meake me seem like I am there with him verses a bystander .. I would think about it

    October 9, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
  59. adam

    Why can't we just go to a movie and see it in it's "original" format. Who needs 3D anyways? I have never been to a movie in 3D and don't intend on doing it anytime soon unless I am forced to.

    October 9, 2010 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
  60. Drea


    October 9, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Name*Tammy

    No! I am far from being disappointed about Happy Potter not being in 3D. 3D is overrated and I am so glad that it will stay a "classic" film!

    October 9, 2010 at 8:22 pm | Report abuse |
  62. terry martin bacon

    Free hemp save the WORLD$$$

    October 9, 2010 at 8:20 pm | Report abuse |
  63. me

    BS!!!! This is all a plan to make us watch it twice. I bet millions that they will release part 1 in 3D in June right before part 2 hits the theatres.

    October 9, 2010 at 7:34 pm | Report abuse |
  64. vhjzhvh

    Harry potter in 3-D I was so exited but I guess I got exited for nothing because it failed its so stupid how come they can make other movies in 3-D but they cant make harry potter in 3-D

    October 9, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
  65. Tyler

    2-D... 3-D... is there an option for people who dont want to see it in Any-D?

    October 9, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
  66. sandra

    I love watching the harry potter movies, so it doesn't matter to me. It's about harry and his friends. Not about 3-D.

    October 9, 2010 at 5:38 pm | Report abuse |
  67. fievel

    All 3D movies are released in 2D as well. Why the beef? I will say, however, the 2D IMAX sucks if you are not sitting in the center as the rounded screen totally warps the dimensions and ruins the experience.

    October 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
  68. tom

    Looks like most of you havnt seen a 3d movie in along time. The technology has come along way since the green and red lens days. I hope they realse this movie in 3d eventually.

    October 9, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  69. khocolatemoose

    I agree with everyone who has been underwhelmed by the onslaught of 3D. It seems like a cheap trick to entice us to buy a more expensive ticket to a movie that would have worked much better in 2D. I remember seeing Coraline in 3D; that was a great experience, but every other film that has been in 3D hasn't wowed me in that way; it was actually more annoying. That being said, I'm looking forward to the conclusion of the Harry Potter series. Besides, to those of us that actually read and loved the books, the film is about the characters, not the gimmicks. They can save that for something else.

    If you enjoy action films, feel free to add to the conversation at http://khocolatemoose.wordpress.com/

    We'd love to hear what you have to say, and often.



    October 9, 2010 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  70. Michele

    I am SO happy this will not be in 3D. This whole 3D craze is driving me crazy and wearing those glasses makes the whole film darker. I am very excited to see Harry Potter in the way it was meant to be seen.

    October 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Jdub

    Won't affect me at all. I'll still be going to see the movie in the theater. I'm not a huge fan of the 3D thing anyway...I just don't get it.

    October 9, 2010 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Terry

    Kudos to Warner Brothers for not putting out a crappy conversion just to make some extra bucks. If a movie was not filmed in 3D it shouldn't be converted- it's not the same quality or experience.

    October 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
  73. blessing

    What a movie can't wait for the 7th .

    October 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Ted Roll

    I am disappoint

    October 9, 2010 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
  75. seriously

    I know there is a lot of hate for the 3d experience. maybe people should look at the facts. there have been 2 movies that have filmed specifically in 3d with 3d hd cameras. these films actually tell you that in the preview. they were avatar and resident evil:afterlife. the rest of the movies they release in 3d have been converted to 3d, so the effect is not nearly as good. if studios want to make money on 3d, they need to invest money on filming movies in 3d. they also need to pick and choose movies which are suitable for this technology. as for "stupidamericans" i don`t know how it is where your from, but as Americans we have been given the freedom to choose. whenever they play a 3d movie, there is usually a standard version available. as for the people complaining about the prices, heres your solution: wait for the dvd.

    October 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
  76. Genie

    Who cares? 3D is fun but hardly necessary for a good movie with good actors and a good story-line. 3D only enhances movies that rely totally on visual effects or in movies where you can't appreciate what you are seeing without the effect like, what was it, Storm Chasers? That's one of the few movies I've seen in 3D where I felt it made a real impact and truly enhanced the film, it wouldn't have been the same in 2D. I saw Avatar in 3D and 2D–3D added nothing to the movie's impact, it was a great movie without the added 3D effect.

    Seeing the final two HP movies is really just the icing on the cake anyway–having read the books it's not like there's any real surprises waiting for me in any dimension.

    October 9, 2010 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
  77. Bethany

    3d was a big deal in the 90s i remember everyone wanted to see a 3d movie! now hollywood is taking it to far! the way i see it make all the 3d movies you want but at the same time release a 2d version as well! i wear glasses so of course during a 3d movie i get this god awful headache because of the glasses! its more money for the buisness but you will eventually lose your movie audience simply because of only 3d!

    October 9, 2010 at 1:03 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Lars

    Yes, stupidamericans, Americans are "stupid" for not wanting to waste money on something that substantially distracts from the movie-going experience and adds nothing of substance to already expensive movie tickets. I'm not a fan of South Park or NASCAR, but I am a law student that doesn't like throwing money away on something useless. Keep your small-mindedness and gross generalizations about a culture you clearly know little about on the other side of the ocean, please.

    October 9, 2010 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Justin

    I love 3D. Don't understand why it gives people headaches, unless those same people go about their daily lives with 1 eye closed.

    HOWEVER, there are right and wrong ways to do 3D. The "3D conversion" process by which movies that were shot from 1 point of view are treated to appear 3D very rarely produces decent results, and can make things look fake or gimmicky. James Cameron, who spent years developing a true stereoscopic filming process, has been an outspoken opponent of the post-production 3D conversion process for the reason that's very clear looking at boards like this: People don't realize the difference, and all the gimmicky conversion movies will make people hate the IDEA before enough people do it correctly. 3D needs to be done using the correct technology to film 2 viewpoints from the beginning, and ideally, movies should be composed with it in mind.

    I'm glad that the producers of this high profile movie have come to the same conclusion and decided to axe the conversion due to quality concerns, because the last thing any proponent of the idea of 3D wants is for it to be cheapened by gimmicks.

    "3D" is not a gimmick. It's how any animal with 2 eyes pointing in the same direction sees the world. The gimmick is the cheesy ways in which it's often used.

    October 9, 2010 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Sean John

    3D is about as good as dragging your fingernails down a chalkboard while chewing foil.

    October 9, 2010 at 12:10 pm | Report abuse |
  81. Poindexter

    Avatar 3D was one of the best movie experiences I had. Resident Evil 3D blew big time which I expected but was dragged to it. I think a quality film production matched with a great story makes the difference. I would never see a movie because its 3D but because its a good movie. I would easily go and see a Batman 3D or Spiderman 3D because I liked the previous movies. The Harry Potter franchise has done quite well and would not make a gimmicky 3D version. It boils down to who's making the movie.

    October 9, 2010 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Justin

      Yes and no...

      Harry Potter movies have been very good, IMO, and would probably have worked well in 3D, but just taking a good movie and converting it doesn't always yield good results. Avatar was so good because they used true stereoscopic cameras. Pixar movies are so good in 3D because they're rendered from 3D space by virtual cameras (no extra technology needed. Just render each scene twice, and voila!). Harry Potter, however, was NOT filmed stereoscopically, and so must rely on the 3D conversion process, in which elements of scenes are manually cut out (a painstaking process prone to error) and moved slightly in each view to give an illusion of depth. Of course, then you have to fill in what's behind the shifted element, and you end up with something that looks either like either the flat panels of a popup book. Conversely, you can use mathematical methods to shift elements forward or back and then remap the filmed movie onto newly generated geometry (I'm oversimplifying, of course), and end up with what looks like the movie, but projected onto a low-detail 3D clay model of itself.

      I'm convinced that it's these imperfect methods used by movies that weren't planned as 3D and are just trying to cash in on the hype that cause the headaches, because they create something that the brain doesn't entirely know how to interpret.

      I'm a huge proponent of proper 3D, and I applaud the producers of Harry Potter for realizing that quality was lacking in their method and pulling it.

      October 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Tigerlilly

    Yay. Some of us will not pay extra for a movie ticket for 3D. Its an insult to our intelligence...and it was a novelty years ago. Now, its been revised as a way to soak up more money from modest families. Its a rip off. Maybe I'll take my family to see this movie in the theater.

    October 9, 2010 at 11:45 am | Report abuse |
  83. LILLY

    Yay. Some of us will not pay extra for a movie ticket for 3D. Its an insult to our intelligence...and it was a novelty years ago. Now, its been revised as a way to soak up more money from modest families. Its a rip off. Maybe I'll take my family to see this movie in the theater.

    October 9, 2010 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
  84. Nix

    Don't be silly! 3D is a gimmick that adds nothing, except in Avatar, which was 3D from the ground up. Everything else has only been a money grab.

    October 9, 2010 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
  85. Ryan

    "3-D fail"? Really CNN? Really?

    October 9, 2010 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
  86. Dan Uff

    Well, this will be GOOD NEWS for my wife who cannot see 3D. I'm glad too.

    October 9, 2010 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
  87. Anne

    I agree with everyone else here. I am SO glad that there isn't a 3-d option. I wouldn't have gone to see it anyway, I hate 3-d. It's really just a stupid gimick designed by theatre owners and movie makers to justify charging the movie goer more. It's ridiculous and unwarrented. Good ridance.

    October 9, 2010 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
  88. spindle

    in reply to dane: buddy ur paranoid. Bollywood dwarfs ur hollywood by 10 fold...

    October 9, 2010 at 10:28 am | Report abuse |
  89. lyn

    I think if there was more technology involved 2 get rid of the stupid glasses and the headache irritation that ensues more people wud enjoy 3d. If u fix that the masses wud come. U wud think in our day and age we wud have comfort in watching 3d without the migranes.

    October 9, 2010 at 9:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Justin

      Don't think there's any way to do 3D without glasses using projectors. Only way to do it is with backlit screens and diffusion gratings, and those wouldn't work at that size and distance from the screen. Home TVs will have it soon enough, but in theatres I think we're stuck with the glasses (unless we want to project the movie on 2 separate screens and tell everyone to cross their eyes...). As for the headaches, I think the main issue is that most movies use a "3d conversion" process to convert movies that were shot by a single camera into 2 separate points of view, which results in a simulation of 3D that is gimmicky, and that our brains don't entirely accept. Unless you know what to look for, you usually can't consciously notice what's wrong, but your brain is used to interpreting true 3D images every waking moment of your life, and when presented with a faked one, it struggles to interpret it.

      October 9, 2010 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
  90. Andrew


    I'd like you to say a country nicer to live in than the US.

    And I'm most definitely smarter than you.


    October 9, 2010 at 9:30 am | Report abuse |
  91. soldiers daughter

    @jakelake they have 4d for sonigrams so why not for the movies? Imagine the headaches then. OYVEY!

    October 9, 2010 at 9:24 am | Report abuse |
  92. Ian

    Who gives a crap about 3D? I'd like to make it official that nobody- ESPECIALLY fans of the books written by JK Rowling-give a flip about whether or not a film is in 3D. All I ask is for the same tone that the book packed. PLEASE!

    October 9, 2010 at 9:16 am | Report abuse |
  93. leslie

    I am thrilled! 3-D movies literally make me sick. Now, it will be do much easier to find a showtime I can enjoy.

    October 9, 2010 at 9:16 am | Report abuse |
  94. Scott

    I agree – I hate 3D!

    October 9, 2010 at 8:45 am | Report abuse |
  95. Donna E

    stupidamerican is so arrogant in his assessment of 3D–he must not have much of an imagination if he can only see movies in 3D. The 3D gimmic is still in a very primitive state and not easy to watch-plus ppl who make them feel the need to exaggerate a character's every single movement, instead of trying to find a way to make film capture real-life movement and interactions. 'stupidamerican' sounds like a 20-something who's only goal in life is to obtain the latest gadget, and throws a tempertantrum if he doesn't get it. Sort of boorish, not fun to have around.....

    October 9, 2010 at 8:23 am | Report abuse |
  96. jassi

    I didn't want it in 3D anyway.

    Thank you Warner Bros for leaving it a 2D.

    October 9, 2010 at 8:18 am | Report abuse |
  97. Joe

    Glad HP will not be 3D
    I just missed seeing The Last Airbender as I couldn't get to a 2D session. Finding a 2D showing was hard, couldn't get to any.

    October 9, 2010 at 7:07 am | Report abuse |
  98. dan

    3d is just a new marketing ploy. Nothing extra special about it.

    October 9, 2010 at 6:57 am | Report abuse |
  99. Jr

    Anywho, all u Harry potter fans, I hope u enjoy your films. And dont let 3d or anybody who claims to be holier than thou the best of you. But please secretely wish for star wars 3d.

    October 9, 2010 at 5:31 am | Report abuse |
  100. JakeLake Jack

    All this talk in physics about 11 possible dimensions, and we're only (occasionally) getting three? Come on, Hollywood, you're not even trying.

    October 9, 2010 at 5:25 am | Report abuse |
  101. Jr

    My nerdy side would like to see star wars in 3d, but my adult side might get nautious.

    October 9, 2010 at 5:18 am | Report abuse |
  102. Jr

    I'm not really into Harry potter either. But if it gives someone a break from the daily grind we all call life. Than power to the people, online bullies.

    October 9, 2010 at 4:55 am | Report abuse |
  103. Jr

    If you people really want to see the movie. Than I hope 2d suffices. I am an adult non fan who never read the books, but I did enjoy the first two movies without expensive 3d tickets.

    October 9, 2010 at 4:49 am | Report abuse |
  104. Tallulah

    Another vote for no 3d. I think it's just silly. Most of the movies they show in 3d are ridiculous. Toy Story 3 was a great movie but the 3d was worthless. If I want to watch 3d, I'll got to Disney World and watch "Mickey's Philharmagic" or the "Muppets". At least it is funny and worthwhile. Down with Potter 3d!

    October 9, 2010 at 4:35 am | Report abuse |
  105. Jr

    Ok. I hated every Harry potter film except the first. But I also never read a single Harry potter book. I have seen plenty of : story based films: without 3d and they conveyed the point just fine. So why complain Now?

    October 9, 2010 at 4:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Midnight Raven

      I think that the stories are brilliant, but that the directer did a poor job with them. Hope the next one is good!

      October 9, 2010 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
  106. SaRah

    Thank you so sick of everything being in 3-D what's so wrong with normal 2-D!!!

    October 9, 2010 at 4:13 am | Report abuse |
  107. Joe

    I don't get articles like this. Who are the people who are genuinely disappointed? As a matter of fact, who are all these "people" that keep getting citing at liking 3D anyway? I find it a major gimmick and extremely distracting.

    October 9, 2010 at 4:05 am | Report abuse |
  108. phrohg

    It's Harry Potter. I don't want to watch it in any dimension. Wish these movies would just go back to whatever dimension they crawled out of (this includes the books as well.)

    October 9, 2010 at 2:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Jr

      I don't care for Harry potter that much. I am a horror book fan. Does that bother you too?

      October 9, 2010 at 5:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Jr

      You must b one of those christians bothered by so called satanic influences that Jesus would chuckle about.

      October 9, 2010 at 5:11 am | Report abuse |
  109. Frank

    I do not want to sit in a theater for d@mn near 3 hours trying to find a way to get those ill-fitting goggles to fit on my face, over my glasses. I always eventually have to take my glasses off and then I develop a headache.

    October 9, 2010 at 2:53 am | Report abuse |
  110. neorevo

    3D is not the end all be all...good stories still count. Definitely will see it in 2D.

    October 9, 2010 at 1:50 am | Report abuse |
  111. Freddie

    I used to go out and see a movie at least three or four times a month. Now it's about that many per year. Ticket prices inflated too much for me; I hate rude audiences; and the overall quality of films has dropped considerably.

    October 9, 2010 at 1:45 am | Report abuse |
  112. Jeff Polizzi

    To me it does not matter if I am going to see, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1," in 3D or 2D, as long as it is going to be a good movie, no matter what. It makes me want to say to people that it does not matter if the movie is going to be 3D, 2D, or whatever. All it matters is if the movie is good or not, despite being in 3D or 2D.

    October 9, 2010 at 1:43 am | Report abuse |
  113. FBL

    3D == Harder to Copy == Studios Like It. It's all about the Banjamins.

    October 9, 2010 at 1:38 am | Report abuse |
  114. Freddie

    3D is an over-rated rip-off!

    October 9, 2010 at 1:37 am | Report abuse |

    Instead of investing in 3d, why not invest in led technology, lose the projector already and create 1 huge 50foot flat screen and film in high definition digital. What am I saying, even if they did do that, i'd still probably won't go. The evening at the theater anymore is too costly, especially if you have a family of 5. Last time I took the family it was $70 inc. 5 tickets, snacks and pop.. and the movie sucked...

    October 9, 2010 at 1:20 am | Report abuse |
  116. brian

    3d sucks. There is noone I know that likes 3d

    October 9, 2010 at 1:12 am | Report abuse |
  117. parry hotter

    3D is the worst stinkin thing ever i hate it. if you cant make it good make it 3D

    October 9, 2010 at 12:55 am | Report abuse |
  118. WayneTO

    I loved reading Deathly Hallows. Personally, I felt like Rowlings wrote this one with the film in mind so I think it will translate really well on the big screen. I really could care less if it was made into 3D. 3D does not define or even enhance a movie in any way. It's just there, like desert. Me, I'm going for the main meal! πŸ˜‰

    October 8, 2010 at 11:55 pm | Report abuse |
  119. luis

    This is genius....it is like two premieres for one movie...first in 2D which will set records, then again in 3D...brilliant marketing...

    October 8, 2010 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
  120. 3D is horrible

    3D is annoying.

    October 8, 2010 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
  121. nasnan

    Movie theaters here charge ten dollars for a regular ticket, and fifteen for 3D. Screw that. So far any movie I have wanted to see has has had 3D as an option. I hope 3D doesn't become a staple, I prefer to not have to wear special eyeglasses when I go to a movie.

    October 8, 2010 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
  122. ben

    I'm going to see this whether it's in 3d or not, this is the movie series i grew up with

    October 8, 2010 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
  123. thetrom

    3-D is a nice to have
    but no reason why this should impact sales. I hate having to wear the 3d glasses on top of my normal glasses.

    just another gimmic and fad the entertainment industry thinks we need. back in the day i looked forward to the occasional 3d flick. something specifically meant to be enjoyed in 3d.

    October 8, 2010 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
  124. jules

    Glad to hear it. We rarely pay for 3d but my daughter is such a huge HP fan I shell out for IMAX 3d for these movies. Now we can go to the reg. theater and save some $$$

    October 8, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Report abuse |
  125. jenrose182

    It would have only been about 10 minutes of the movie anyway, right? It doesn't matter. I'm still going to LOVE it.

    October 8, 2010 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
  126. Trip

    I am a projectionist at a 3D IMAX theater and I am glad to hear HP will not be in 3D. Avatar was FANTASTIC in 3D because it was actually designed from the beginning as a 3D movie, and later filmed with 3D cameras. Movies that are originally in 2D and later converted to 3D just don't look good. If Hollywood wants to get on the 3D bandwagon, then they need to do it from the beginning and film the movies in 3D.

    October 8, 2010 at 9:49 pm | Report abuse |
  127. Name*RHIANNON

    Um no I will still be there!

    October 8, 2010 at 9:30 pm | Report abuse |
  128. amy

    I never seen any of them in 3D and honestly I never would. I think 3D is just another way of saying pay more. And when you buy the movie for your own I don't think you can buy it in 3D anyway. So the 3D thing would be a one time tease. Kinda like you saw it now its gone.

    October 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm | Report abuse |
  129. bzzyb

    I would have liked to have seen it in 3D, but better they pull the plug on it if it is not finished. I took my daughter to see "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" in I-Max and 3D. At no point was I told that only the first 20 minutes would be in 3D. Long story short, I saw it again on a standard screen in 2D and did not enjoy the movie any less. And no, the theater did nothing to compensate me for the extra money I unnecessarily spent.

    October 8, 2010 at 9:07 pm | Report abuse |
  130. hermione

    Who needs 3D? stupidamericans, do u really like RENTING 3D glasses (because u HAVE to give them back afterwards) for 2.00$ PER PAIR? Maybe u could let us all have some of that extra $ u apparently have laying around so we can afford to take our kids to c a matinee!!!!!

    October 8, 2010 at 9:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • dresta

      Are you a little lacking in the funds department, eh Hermione? I can tell by your atrocious grammar that you had a sub-par education so my guess is you will never have money to see any type of movie. I'm guessing you also have bad teeth and eight children already and are currently pregnant with the ninth. The most work you have done is on your back presumably. Good day to you love.

      October 10, 2010 at 8:36 am | Report abuse |
  131. Jeff

    @ "me": "love action"? Lol! Which harry potter movie would include 3d love action and where can I get tickets? Lol!

    October 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm | Report abuse |
  132. snape

    3D movies are garbage, I'd prefer to see it in regular format and will not go back to see it in 3D.

    October 8, 2010 at 8:40 pm | Report abuse |
  133. Stella

    Do wht u knw best and send d message across cos people get entertaind and relievd weneva one watches ur movie.its kind of pity dat u'r far bhind schedule.luv ya

    October 8, 2010 at 8:33 pm | Report abuse |
  134. matt

    hell, Id watch it even it were in black and white πŸ˜‰ 3D give me a headache and never really works for me – perhaps I have wonky eyes or something! I actually still prefer the good "old fashioned" regular 2D movies

    October 8, 2010 at 8:28 pm | Report abuse |
  135. Nick

    I think 3-d is a great thing it depends on who puts out the movie and how much they are willing to pay for a great 3-d film. And it really is a different approach and aspect to movie making. It just depends on how much and how good the 3-d is if it looks like they actually are coming out of the screen Then that is awesome! But regular 3-d is not that great. But i am dissapointed i was looking forward to seeing harry potters first 3-d film to see how it turned out but i guess we will never know.

    October 8, 2010 at 8:12 pm | Report abuse |
  136. izy

    Thank goodness its not in 3d!! it gives me a headache to watch a 3d movie and these last 2 movies will be epic enough without it!!!!

    October 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Report abuse |
  137. Pat

    What I think is that you should have mentioned the release date somewhere in this post.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
  138. Acting Gee

    Please check out my blog which has free casting calls and entertainment news http://theactorslot.blogspot.com/

    October 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm | Report abuse |
  139. Jam

    I thought this was about 3d not bash America time.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm | Report abuse |
  140. catt

    Hollywood don't know how to make good 3d anyway. Who cares if harry potter isn't in 3d? Btw, my avatar 3d IMAX experience sucks big time! The whole time the movie was blurry and the effect was unnecessary.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:22 pm | Report abuse |
  141. napoleon

    Yes I agree. They only put it in 3-D to make us pay more money. I like 2-D better.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
  142. SoldiersDaughter

    Potter fans are loyal to the end. 3d or 2d as long as it comes out on the due date no worries.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm | Report abuse |
  143. Me

    I'm surprised to see so many people dislike 3-D and I completely agree with all of them. I do like 3-D animated movies but 3-D love action irritates me. It just doesn't look natural. That's what the article said too, that the 3-D version of Harry Potter wouldn't be able to reach the highest standards. I applaud them for keeping their standards high. I'm glad that they didn't pospone the movie release on account of 3-D problems. Again, good for them and for us, the viewers.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      Of course, I meant to say live-action not "love action" πŸ™‚

      October 8, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • lxs

      I agree. I abhor 3d, and it seems like almost everyone commenting does too. Who are the people buying 3d tickets? I assumed it would be the internet/message board crowd. Apparently not.

      October 11, 2010 at 10:23 am | Report abuse |
  144. wes

    Kimber I doubt you've ever actually met an American.

    October 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm | Report abuse |
  145. Ashley

    I was really hoping to see it in 3D, but I am not too disappointed. I am still super excited to see the final 2 movies! I can't wait!

    October 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm | Report abuse |
  146. John Mammal

    3d cinema owns you.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:46 pm | Report abuse |
  147. kimber

    I'm glad it's not coming out in 3D.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
  148. LRKH256

    I am so happy it's not going to be in 3-D! Everyone I know says it gives them headaches. I just want to enjoy a good movie. The story should suck you in, not the effects anyways!!!

    October 8, 2010 at 6:33 pm | Report abuse |
  149. DZ

    Don't like 3D movies-the few I have seen, my money was totally wasted. Perfer to see movies without any distractions. I go to see good quality movies-not distractions. If I wanted to have distractions, I would wait and see them at home.Kids is all you need for that!

    October 8, 2010 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse |

    I have seen all Harry Potter movies & I don't think seing this 1 N 3D is going 2 make a difference. They're all good. No 3D PLEASE.Save your$...

    October 8, 2010 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse |
  151. anniefire911

    Thanks Dumbledor!! 3-D gives me mirgriane headaches, the Deathly Hallows trailers I've seen are fabulous enough without irritating ill fitting cootied glasses and the ensuing crainial pain. I refuse to suffer though miovies in 3-D, do we have so little imagination left thanks to modern technology that regular 2-D no longer works for us? How about less money spent on 3-D technology and more doled out for better movie scripts so we don't have to suffer through remakes of awful 70's and 80's TV shows and movies that were not so hot the first time around ? A garbage movie is still a garbage movie no matter what effects you throw at it!

    October 8, 2010 at 6:28 pm | Report abuse |
  152. Siriusly who cares

    I personally couldn't give a damn whether its in 2D or 3D. I love Harry Potter and so long as i get to watch it, I'm good.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:28 pm | Report abuse |
  153. dane

    No 3-D, so many movies are ruined with retarded 3-D. most barely had any 3-D scenes any ways. keep it 2-D.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm | Report abuse |
  154. KJ

    This is a huge plus not having it in 3D. I hate 3D. The glasses are uncomfortable and I struggle to keep them on over my own glasses. None of my movie coupons work for 3D which royally blows. I hope we see an end to 3D movies very soon because it is an absolute waste of money. I loved Toy Story 3 but it was completely unnecessary in 3D. Please studios, no more 3D crap!

    October 8, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Report abuse |
  155. Dannah

    $$$$ ploy! Hate 3D anyway! Yay 2D & Yay Potter!

    October 8, 2010 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
  156. Robert

    I think the story is more powerful in it's entirety than having to depend on 3-D. I will see the movie despite lacking the 3-D component.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
  157. SCMom

    I think it is genius on behalf of Warner Bros. They are now getting 3 movies out of one book because they will release it in 2D this fall, then, when the 3D version is ready, it will be released and everyone that went for the 2D + everyone that waited for the 3D will go. Then, they final installment will come out. They are maximizing $$ earnings as the end of the franchise looms.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
  158. Bo

    Good! 3D is a dumb gimmick anyway.

    October 8, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
  159. Monica

    Doesn't bother me a bit. I really don't see why 3D is such a big deal. I'll be there opening night regardless.

    October 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
  160. Tiffany

    I'm completely over 3D. I'm VERY glad about this!

    October 8, 2010 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
  161. Guest

    There is a god. I wouldn't want to see it 3d anyways. Most 3d sucks unless it was shot and planned for it even then it sucks.

    October 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm | Report abuse |
  162. Corey

    I'm not a fan of 3D. The studios all think that 3D is a much bigger deal than it is. Most everyone that I know prefers to see quality movies in standard HD 2D. 3D just makes for a distraction from the actual movie.

    October 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm | Report abuse |
  163. Robert

    I probably will eventually see it, but I prefer the 3D. There are several movies I'll go see before Harry Potter.

    October 8, 2010 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse |
  164. Derek

    This is totally a money making ploy. "You've seen the hit movie, now see it in glorious 3D!!!" Less of a fail and more of a tactic.
    But I'm with everyone else, I hate 3D and always avoid it.

    October 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Fan

      I hate 3D as well – I wish they would start listening to what movie audiences really want. I don't know anyone that prefers 3D to 2D. – I just find 3D films annoying.

      October 8, 2010 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
  165. India Andrews

    I didn't want to see it in 3-D anyway. I was hoping for a 2-D alternative. The 3-D thing is just a gimmick to me.

    October 8, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • trout

      I agree. I hate that there are so many movies that unneccesarily put 3D effects in their movies just to jack up the prices. I'm glad this will not be in 3D

      October 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jason

      I agree- 3D is a bad idea. I saw the last one in IMax 3D, and it was horrible. Mostly due to the fact that the 3D portion only lasted 15 minutes, but still managed to give me a headache

      October 8, 2010 at 5:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Melly

      3D gives me a headache. I'm super excited about seeing it in IMAX (they finally built one within driving distance) but I too was hoping there would be a 2D alternative. So YAY no 3D. But also no reason for the theaters to charge even more for a ticket.

      October 9, 2010 at 2:05 am | Report abuse |
    • Chrissy

      I HATE, HATE, HATE 3-D! It gives me a headache, makes my eyeballs hurt, and costs too much money. I have ocular myositis, so the whole 3-D thing practically wrecks the movie experience for me. I go to probably at least 50% less movies now than I did before they started releasing everything in 3-D. Stupid money making gimmick is all it is.

      October 9, 2010 at 3:48 am | Report abuse |
    • ginsing

      I agree.

      October 9, 2010 at 8:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Liz

      Yes!! I hate 3D!!

      October 9, 2010 at 9:14 am | Report abuse |
    • BFD

      Very few people will care whether or not it's in 3D. 3D is not the be all end all for every movie that the hypeists seem to think it is.

      October 9, 2010 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Tatayan

      Glad it's not in 3D – I don't like 3D movies.

      October 9, 2010 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kayla

      I generally don't like the idea of needing glasses and $20+ to enhance my movie-going experience. Additionally, I think it's a bit bizarre to have the first 6 Harry Potter films in 2D then the last 2 in 3D. Keep it simple. The only people who really care that a movie is in 3D are the people making money off of it and the whiny kids who buy into advertising hype.

      October 9, 2010 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • jmmbell

      Why people pay more money for a gimmick is beyond me.

      October 10, 2010 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cory

      I'm glad it's in 2-D. The 3-D format is a waste of money and time and to me it ruins a lot of movies. Not to mention the fact that my 8 year old has a headache every time we go to see one, and theaters in our area will not offer the 2-D version if the 3-D is playing. It has almost stopped up from going to the shows and waiting for it to come out of DVD.

      October 11, 2010 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Argenteus

      Part of a good movie is getting caught up in it – 3D is a constant distraction from getting caught up in the movie. I end up watching the 3D effects instead of the story. And when they edit for 3D, with things flying at the camera and such, all that becomes dopey campy gimmicks in regular view, like dated pop music it marks a movie as past-its-prime. There are a very few movies that can actually pull off 3D as an enhancement to the experience, and usually it's the animated movies. A great movie with a good story doesn't need gimmicks like 3D, and very very few movie makers can add 3D as better than a gimmick, Avatar being the most notable exception and the standard-setter. Cameron had to develop special cameras to pull it off right by filming in 3D. Any post-production addition of 3D by processing will just ruin a good live-action movie. Save the gimmicks for movies that need something to make them sit-through-able.

      October 11, 2010 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

About this blog

Our daily cheat-sheet for breaking celebrity news, Hollywood buzz and your pop-culture obsessions.