Could be an awesome use of 3D, but with some fear of the vomit comet effect if they're too good at giving the audience a sense of weightlessness.

Cuaron making a new film is exciting enough… throw in Downey Jr, sci-fi, and an honest-to-God visionary filmmaker exploring the possibillities of 3D all adds up to me wanting to buy tickets right this minute!

I´m fucking tired of this 3D trend. It´s not the future of cinema, it´s a stupid gimmick. Would Manhattan or 2001 be any better if they were 3D?

Oh God. Please. If you're there, please make the mewling children stop. IT IS NOT A FAD. IT IS NOT A 'TREND'. For better or worse, THIS IS THE WAY ITS GOING TO BE. Are you that fucking witless that you can't see that Avatar changed the game and Alice made sure the change is permanent. DEAL WITH IT. And Devin, you're 'Guess what? It's in 3D!' was old in January. Stop humiliating yourself by allowing your apoplectic FURY at Avatar's ridiculous, game-changing success to colour everythIng you write.

Ted, you are a moron. It IS indeed a gimmick. Wanna know how I know? Because every second movie this summer is being retroactively made 3-d. As soon as a couple of these movies underperform studios will realize that people won't just flock to any 3D movie. 3D is no more the WAY IT IS GOING TO BE than Imax is…

You guys complaining about 3D need to consider this: Cuaron is a master at his craft and, given the subject matter, may actually deliver an actually immersive experience and not the post-production rush job garbage that'll soon be littering cinemas.

I like that 3-D *is* a gimmick. Yeah, Cuaron can probly use it in an interesting way and will most likely make a movie ten times better than the Alice in Wonderland. But how was Burton using it "wrong"? No, he used it exactly right – you make little dudes fly out of the screen, like in CAPTAIN EO. Or you have an eyeball pop out like in FRIDAY THE 13TH 3-D. That's how you use 3-D, you embrace it. I hate this bullshit about 3-D being used properly only if it's not cool or fun. What's the point of using it then?

If 3D is such a gimmick, why is it being built into the next generation of TVs as standard? Why are major broadcasters investing in dedicated 3D channels? If you think this sort of money gets thrown around on a whim, or is going to be written off after a couple of flop movies, you're retarded.

Hopefully with a director of Cuaron's quality embracing 3D this will finally start to end the '3D is a fad' brigade. I'm very excited to see what he can do with the technology. Imagine how even more amazing that long tracking shot through the warzone in Children of Men would have been with the use of depth you get from the technology.

3D isn't the problem, it's studios making films 3D when that wasn't the creator's intnent. Hopefully that kind of thing will become as unpopular as colorizing black and white films.

I am pretty neutral on 3D but I want to point something out to all these ppl who yap about it being a gimmick. The exact same thing was said about sound and then about color by the respective audiences and some of the old guard in the studio systems, at the times. TV was a fad too, remember? It'll be gimmicky for awhile with desperate studio knobs shoehorning it into their films to make a quick buck, but once directors and DPs figure out how to use it, it will be just another aspect of film making; a tool to add texture to a film.