Anna Daniels
The highlight of 3D films? Discarding those glasses on your way out.
We had thought this phase was over. Recall 2009—the “Avatar” phenomenon, when studios believed that a third dimension was the ultimate future, cramming it into every blockbuster whether viewers welcomed it or not. The excitement was tangible back then. Plastic glasses, immersive visuals, a future that now seems almost embarrassingly naive.
Now, consider the surprise when James Gunn—yes, the same Gunn who is building his fresh DC Universe on “Superman”—posts on Bluesky, practically urging: “Just experienced the final cut of ‘Superman’ in 3D, and wow… it’s truly spectacular. If you enjoy 3D, this is a must-see!” I believe his enthusiasm is genuine, but it feels reminiscent of someone gifting you a Blu-ray player in 2025—kind-hearted, perhaps, but completely out of touch.
Let’s get the details straight: “Superman,” directed by Gunn, is set to premiere on July 11, 2025. There’s no festival debut on the agenda yet; Gunn wrapped up the final edit this June. While “Avatar” was expertly crafted for an immersive 3D experience, much of 2025’s “Superman” was converted in post-production. This implies a loss of brightness, clarity, and the distinct cinematography that Gunn’s director of photography, Henry Braham, aimed to achieve.
Truth be told, I admit to having been fooled a couple of times. “Gravity.” “Hugo.” “Life of Pi,” and yes, “The Walk” if you enjoy a thrill. These CGI masterpieces were designed with depth in mind, not just reheated in post-editing. But nearly every other claimed “premium” 3D release? Duller visuals, subdued skin tones, and that nagging feeling you’re watching through smeared glasses.
And ah, those glasses—constantly askew, obstructing your peripheral vision, turning your ticket price into an unwelcome eyewear rental. They were never stylish. Not even on premiere night, not even when you convinced your date to wear them upside down for a giggle.
Why is Gunn holding onto this idea? I understand—studios love to create hype around major releases, and the revamped DC Universe is likely using every marketing strategy available. But we’re not in 2010 anymore. Audiences now seek clarity and brightness. Cinematographers strive for it, projectionists advocate for it, and critics endlessly discuss it. Ultimately, viewers recognize when they’re getting less value for their ticket. Even Gunn hints at the oddness, suggesting 3D is a matter of “preference,” like cilantro or pineapple on pizza.
Perhaps there’s a deeper meaning—Gunn’s Superman might not just represent an update, but a revival of traditional optimism. And what’s more optimistic than dragging 3D into a new era? Or, more cynically, is it merely a way to charge extra?
I plan to watch “Superman.” You will too. But I’ll wager on viewing it in 2D, centered, and without those glasses. I want to appreciate what Gunn originally shot, what his crew meticulously graded and lit. Not the dim, muddled product made for a fleeting nostalgia hit.
Then again, maybe that’s just my perspective. Perhaps next July, I’ll glance over to see a bunch of kids in the back—smudged glasses, wide-eyed, truly believing that flying is a magical experience, vividly right before them.
That would be wonderful, wouldn’t it? Until the credits roll, and we all reach for the recycling bin.
