The best thing about 3D movies? Tossing the glasses in the trash on the way out.
We were supposed to be done with this. You remember—2009, the “Avatar” tidal wave, when studios declared depth was the future and every blockbuster jammed a third dimension in, whether the audience wanted it or not. The hope then was palpable. Plastic glasses, glowing screens, a future that, looking back, feels like staring straight into a very naive sun.
So imagine the whiplash when James Gunn—yes, that James Gunn, who's staking his newly-minted DC Universe on “Superman”—takes to Bluesky and all but pleads: “Just saw the final version of ‘Superman' in 3D and oh wow … just incredible to see. If you have a taste for 3D, this is a great way to see the film.” It's sincere, I don't doubt that. But it reads a bit like someone offering you a Blu-ray player in 2025—generous, maybe, but wildly out of step with reality.
Let's get the facts out of the way: “Superman,” directed by Gunn, will open July 11, 2025. There's no world premiere on the festival calendar yet; Gunn just finished the final cut this June. And while “Avatar” was built from the ground up as a stereoscopic rollercoaster, most of 2025's “Superman” wasn't shot in native 3D—it was post-converted. You know what that means: more dimness, more visual mud, less of the sharp, clear cinematography Gunn's DP, Henry Braham, was hired to deliver.
Here's the thing: I remember being fooled once, maybe twice. “Gravity.” “Hugo.” “Life of Pi” (and fine, “The Walk,” if you're into vertigo). CGI spectacles actually sculpted for depth, not just reheated in the post-production microwave. But every other so-called “premium” 3D release? Duller colors, muted skin tones, and that persistent sense you're watching the movie through a pair of greasy windshields.
And the glasses. Oh, the glasses—perpetually crooked, clouding the corners of your vision, reducing every dollar of ticket price to a begrudging eyewear rental. They were never cool. Not even on opening night, not even when you begged your date to wear them upside down just for a laugh.
Why is Gunn clinging to this? I get it—studios love “eventizing” a big release, and the new DCU needs every box office trick in the book. But we're not in 2010 anymore, Toto. People crave sharpness, vibrancy. Cinematographers fight for it; projectionists fight for it; critics drone on about it. Most importantly, audiences recognize when they're getting less—not more—for their money. Even Gunn seems aware of the weirdness, pitching 3D as a “taste,” like cilantro or pineapple pizza.
Maybe there's a symbolic read here—Gunn's Superman isn't just an update, but a resurrection of old-school optimism, and what's more optimistic than dragging 3D kicking and screaming into the future? Or maybe, more cynically, it's just a pre-sold upcharge.
I'll see “Superman.” You will, too. But I'll hedge: 2D, dead center, no glasses. I want to see what Gunn actually shot, what his team graded and lit and obsessed over. Not the darkened, dimmed version rebuilt for a fleeting nostalgia trip.
But maybe that's just me. Maybe I'll look over next July, see half a dozen kids in the back row—smudged glasses, jaws dropped, believing for one night that flying is magic, real, right there in front of them.
It'd be nice, wouldn't it? Until the credits roll, and we all reach for the recycling bin.
It was me! I asked for Superman in 3D! James Gunn doesn’t do weak 3D. His Guardians trilogy had top shelf 3D, the first even won 3D movie of the year at the Lumiere Awards. And they were all post-converted! Just as your beloved The Walk and Gravity were! Because post-converted 3D has advanced enough to feature the same stereoscopic care that native 3D films have. Just as you said, it’s not 2010 anymore.