Chicken Run was a Dreamworks movie that debuted in 2000.

Perhaps you were thinking of Disney's Chicken Little?

Thanks, you're right. Fixed.

The only trouble with the new system is the actual film ends up looking like complete crap. I was excited to take my kids to see The Nightmare Before Christmas -- a film Disney tried so hard to disown when it came out, but which they're all too happy to embrace now -- in Real D. But because the polarization dims your view of the image, and because digital projectors still kinda suck, the result was mud. Not just too dark -- which would be bad enough -- but with LCD ghosting, really awful. My kids didn't notice, I don't think, but all I wanted to do was take off my damned glasses and see the movie properly.

Forget 3D. IMAX is where it's at, baby!

In theory circular polarization has the added advantage that you don't get variable leakage depending upon the angle of your head as you do with linear polarization.

I also remember some films, I think in specialty ones like OmniMax or IMAX theaters, using alternative frame sequencing glasses, where everyone got glasses with little radio receivers in them. Each lens in the glasses could be blacked out by a little on board circuit. As the film was played, radio signals were used to synchronize which lens, right or left, should be viewing the image on the screen. Not really a new idea, apparently, as something similar was developed in 1922 (according to wikipedia), but updated with radios and much smaller and more comfortable viewing glasses.

The downsides were that it was expensive to install the equipment to keep all the glasses and the film in sync, so it isn't used much. Also, glasses had to have batteries and be collected after showings, another pain. So this technology isn't used much, though it has seem some limited use with home video game systems.

Aren't the stories crappy enough? Aren't all the actors who can't get sitcoms or movie gigs anymore already fully employed doing voice work in cartoons and commercials? Haven't we paid back Disney's investment in every animated feature since Snow White, yet?

C'mon this is bullshit. Now everything is going to be rapid cut flashing light rotating perspective fast talking nonstop breathless shit. I can hardly wait for Shrek IV-3D. Will there be a drug addled donkey? Will Shrek be ugly and green?

And while we're at it. Only 90% every single goddamn movie made in the last 6 years was made with a jittery handheld shaking nonstop underlit over contrasted out of focus manually and randomly shifting depth of field cell phone quality camera work. Muttered sound editing and no dynamic balance is just a bonus.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO MORE OF THAT. I BEG YOU PLEASE MAKE MORE MOVIES THAT LOOK LIKE A 11 YEAR OLD WENT TO BLAIR WITCH FILM SCHOOL.

I saw the U2 movie in 3D - and in IMAX - a few months ago. It was a fantastic experience. The theatre was filled and it certainly appeared that everybody enjoyed it tremendously.

I think a key point is that the technology will enhance good content, but will not make up for bad content. And the technology is best when it does not intrude on the story content. This is what we got with U2 3D - really good content that was made better with technology that made it more compelling and even a little bit lifelike.

The show was somewhat unusual for rock concert films in that it was shot at a series of concerts and venues in several cities around the world (but mostly South America) and then very artfully edited so that it looked like it was one show, from beginning to end. It was shot in high definition video, with hand held (steadicams) and boom mounted cameras that got shots the audience and the musicians simply never see. We got great close ups and action shots of all the musicians in the band, so it was great for U2 fans.

I can't say it was completely lifelike because of the stereo effect, but it was very good. As a former physicist and former rock photographer I went in with a little skepticism and some knowledge of what flaws and telltales to look for in both content and technology. But I'm happy to say that I (and everybody I saw afterwards) was really pleased with the show we saw. The 3D didn't get in the way, and very much enhanced the whole experience.

Another vote for the technology which will make the scripts better.

And, what am I supposed to think when the movie industry tackles this before just getting the flicks out there shown with the projector lamps turned up?

For just one example, see http://www.deep-focus.com/dfweblog/2007/12/10_things_theaters_get_wrong.html.

It stopped, the sound died or or a combination of both. I wound up with 6 free movie passes. Which I gave away as token gifts. So it's win win.