That was native and I feel like I wasted the extra money for the 3D. It was pretty flat and only offered minimal depth in a few shots.
You take a look at those films and you can immediately see the
difference in something composed and shot in 3D rather than
^^ This (emphasis mine). It's all about how the material is composed for 3D that makes the biggest difference. It's the main reason why even if something is shot natively in 3D it doesn't necessarily translate to a "better" 3D experience than a good upconversion (like Titanic mentioned later).
Personally if they also release it in 3D, my first viewing will be in 3D for Episode 7.
For me, it's not the film that makes me want to see something in 3D, it's the filmmaker. Sort of relates to the composition issue. The fact that it's a Star Wars movie has very little to do with how good or bad the 3D will be. The question is more along the lines of "What has JJ shown us in the past that leads us to believe the 3D experience will be well thought out and executed."
I am most definitely not on the "3D" bandwagon, but I am a big time James Cameron fanboy, and since he (more than any other filmmaker out there) KNOWS 3D inside and out, I'm most likely to watch his films in 3D - simply because I have the highest confidence that the 3D experience will be about as good as it can get.
One interesting thing I remember was James Cameron saying that even the editing should be different when It's 3D. What I remember is that he meant the 3D and 2D versions shouldn't necessarily have the exact same cuts. But I never heard of any 3D movie cuts being different than the 2D version. I don't know if Avatar 3D and 2D are the same cut or not.
It's not so much that the cuts should be different, per se, it's that when editing a film that's in 3D you also need to take the third dimension into account when you make a cut. It takes our eyes a finite amount of time to adjust the depth of focus, so when editing scenes together, you want to avoid having drastic changes in the focus depth of the viewer. Too many rapid and sever changes in depth focus can lead to headaches and eye strain.
I love Cameron's story about his "flop cut" technique: After spending hours, days, or even weeks editing together a complex action shot with many cuts, and watching the scene evolve dozens or even hundreds of times, he subconsciously "learns" where the focus of the action goes from one cut to another and he is thus able to "predict" where the action takes place (left, right, up, down).
First time viewers don't have this foreknowledge of how a scene is cut, so to test whether the edited action is still "followable" by a first-time viewer, he watches the scene with the images flipped horizontally - thus defeating his ingrained knowledge of the scene's flow. If he's still able to follow the action effectively, then he knows the edit is good to go.
When you take a 3D movie into the editing room, you have all those factors to consider PLUS the added depth dimension.
He is also on record as saying he was too conservative with the 3D and that he will be far more aggressive with the three sequels, i take that to mean he is going to give us deeper depth and deeper pop outs or depth out of the screen, i hope so.
I remember feeling that the 3D in Avatar was very natural and not so distracting - which for me personally is the way I prefer it. However, should this philosophy change for the Avatar sequels, I will have the utmost faith that the result will be worth watching.