Second viewing is better

For me the 2nd viewing was not better. I saw it at the 12:01 show, stayed up all night and went to see it at 1:15 pm that afternoon. It was just too soon. The 1st was the best viewing for me but the 3rd was great too. The longer I wait between viewings the more and more I want to see it. Before this I had only seen the same film twice at theatres unless you count the Star Wars rereleases and those were different versions of the film so they don't count. But yeah, the longer in between viewings the better imo. Gives you time to think and talk about it, discover new things to look for and all that.

Thanks for the advise, I have yet to see it in 3D, or any movie for that matter.

Naughty Bunny For me the 3D effect receded as the film went on, I've seen it 3 times in 3D formats and I experienced the same with each. This was only my second 3D film, the first being Avatar, and this was on an entirely different plane. Also saw it for the last time in theater in 2D Edit- Repeated viewings brought out so much more each time I was amazed, probably from the sheer rush of the visuals I missed things that I knew were in there.

IMO 3D is the ONLY way to go. I plan on seeing it in 3D as many times as I possibly can while I can. 2D is just not the same.

Engineering.....ya got that right, we're gonna be condemmed to 2D anyway and on a much smaller screen. This is the future!....where's my flying car and my wall size media viewing appliance in every room of the house.

I'm bucking out early from work tomorrow and seeing it for the 2nd time - before it leaves my area. My first time was IMAX 3D. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 2D - 3D shuts down the brightness by 20% or some crazy amount. Until they get that technology fixed, seeing things in 3D is a huge tradeoff. @Forever War, if you're still there - did you find that in 2D you could see much more detail with a brighter screen?

Jim...most definitely a marked difference between the 2 for me...it wasnt so much brighter than much more detail, maybe it was brighter but my eyes adjusted...not sure.

yup - sounds to me it was brighter for you, your eyes adjusted, but you're still seeing a better quality image, hence more detail. Even tho this was a [i]must see[/i] in 3D because of Ridley's extraordinary visual chops in everything he does, to me 3D just won't live up to the hype until they sort out the brightness issue. Check it out, from from Wikipedia: Because RealD 3D uses a single projector, it suffers a brightness disadvantage. The system causes "significant light loss"; RealD estimates the [b]viewer sees about 35% of the light[/b] when viewing RealD 3D when compared to a similarly projected 2D image on a standard white screen. to me, that's unacceptable

Well, when I get this film on BluRay I'm pretty sure it's gonna be just fine on my plasma set....when I put in the Blade Runner, the 5 disc set, I couldnt believe it...I dont remember seeing it like this back in the day. I think Ridley went 3D to make Fox happy so they could say yeah, we got big 3D film like everyone else...and he probably wanted to play with it too. But for me...meh...it was great to see it in the theater, I appreciate the effort and if you didnt want 3D, you didnt have to take it 3D....thats nice. But I wont miss it at home..nah.