Originally Posted by Kalani
Agreed. Hugo in 3D on a Panasonic 65" plasma is quite impressive.
Sounds like you got your new TV.
3D depends on parallax, or the difference between the left and right eye views. On a small, hand-held screen, even if the device is presenting both views using a lenticular, glasses-less design, the parallax effect is minimal on the small screen.
Hugo and Avatar, by the way, were filmed in genuine (not digitally upconverted) 3D, and the effects were impressive. The opening scene, when the camera flies into the station, is really amazing. The best use of 3D is to create an immersive atmosphere, into which the viewer is drawn, rather than the creation of a spectacle where objects apparently fly into the audience, although occasionally the latter is fun.
Unfortunately, John Carter was shot in 2D , and upconverted.
On the other hand, upconversions can work well if done carefully and lovingly. One of the most amazing examples of this was in Hugo, when Scorsese upconverted the Lumiere Brothers train arriving in the station clip. When people first saw this early use of cinema, they were genuinely frightened to see the train coming towards them on the screen, as this cinematic recreation was a completely new experience. When Scorsese chose to convert this clip to 3D, it was as if we saw the clip with new eyes, just like the original audience. It was the same with the upconversion of the Melies sequences.
Sorry to ramble, but 3D done right really is impressive, and will truly come into its own, when holographic and other technologies free us from 3D glasses. In the meantime, it's still pretty cool.