Three years ago, the end of Iron Man made us all optimistic for a The Avengers, which is set to arrive in May 2012. Iron Man itself was the best Marvel movie since the original Spider-Man, and its sequel was far from disappointing. Thus, hopes are high for The Avengers. Now our new Bruce Banner, a.k.a The Hulk, (Mark Ruffalo) is delivering an update that's widely being passed off as bad news: the movie is not being shot in 3-D.
The lack of 3-D is becoming increasingly rare. And yes, 3-D is often awesome. Avatar would not have been Avatar without 3-D. But Toy Story 3 still would have been Toy Story 3. And Iron Man, without 3-D, was still Iron Man. Is anyone following me? While I’m sure a lot of people enjoy the bonus of watching a 3-D action movie, The Avengers will not suffer from being filmed in the traditional format -- as long as it lives up to the insurmountable expectations I’ve formed for for the film.
But it might not even have to! Through some strange phenomenon of technology that baffles me, also known as 3-D conversion, movies not shot in 3-D may still be shown in 3-D. How does it work? I don’t know. But either way, nothing suffers. Everything about this movie so far is terrific news. Are you going to tell me that a lack of 3-D is really going to rob anything from Ruffalo’s take on the Hulk as the friendless kid in high school who made hand-written-poetry-scarves and used an umbrella ironically? No. You’re not. Because that would be ridiculous.