Just kidding. The only way this could be in 3D was if it were in Braille.
Is 3D such a big stinkin' deal? There seems to have been a lot of movies have been delayed this year to make them into 3D. That is, they weren't originally filmed in 3D and required a legion of code monkeys to toil in a dark programming dungeon to draw relief out of 2D.
I saw Avatar in 3D. It was a cool effect. I heard an interview (possibly with Cameron himself) talking about how old 3D was really extreme and uncomfortable. I remember this was true, when, as a child, I saw a 3D movie and it made me feel ill. The newer 3D is more subtle and you don't notice it as much, just like we don't overthink being able to see depth in real life.
Still (and I know I risk sounding like an old codger), do we need it?
I think the point of a movie is to be told a story. Yes, of course the visuals are important in filmmaking, but the advent of films didn't bury the novel, did it?
Apparently film studios see 3D as some sort of panacea for their income woes. They can charge theatres more to screen their films and the theatres pass on that cost to us.
Do I want to see The Green Hornet? Yes. Do I care if it's in 3D? Yes, I do, because if I have a choice between paying $6 at the cheap theatre or $16 at some Flick Colosseum, sure's shootin' I'm gonna save $10. I will purposefully avoid the 3D version. Even if I had the extra money, I don't think I'd see that as good value.
(The Green Hornet, by the way, was meant to be released this summer but the studio, in its infinite wisdom gave the release date to Grown Ups, which looks abysmal. And if you had a choice for a "summer blockbuster" between an action flick with lots of 'splosions or a comedy full of actors past their sell-by date, which better fits the bill? Then the GH was meant to be released for Christmas, but it's been delayed again into 2011 to - you guessed it - make it into 3D!)