Perhaps the real news here is that the LA Times has a shiny new promo image from Marvel's deep-in-post Thor, giving us our first good look at Anthony Hopkins' Odin and Tom Hiddleston's Loki (Thor himself is hanging out too, but it's nothing we haven't seen before). I personally dig what they're going for here, giving the Norse gods a comic booky, science fiction look instead of going with old school armor. We're probably going to be given some sort of sci-fi explanation for Thor's world and its inhabitants' powers, so at least they'll look the part.

So there you go. That's some news. You should really go ahead and click on over to LA Times and check out a much larger version so you can make sure your scrutiny still works.

The other half of this news isn't too surprising or encouraging: Thor and it's summer partner, Captain America, will be in 3D. Neither will be shot with 3D cameras, but will go through the dreaded "post conversion," the same method that created the murky, dull and entirely unwatchable 3D seen in Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender.

Granted, the announcement that these movies will be released in 3D isn't actually news. Not really. Everything's going 3D. Real news would be Marvel announcing that they wouldn't be doing the whole 3D thing. However, what's unique here is that Marvel and directors Kenneth Branagh and Joe Johnston make this announcement and go on the defensive in the same piece. It's kinda' funny actually. They're well aware of 3D's reputation, but they're doing it anyway so they have to defend that decision now rather than later.

And how are they defending it? Speaketh Branagh:

"It's another draft of the story that can reveal itself in a different way...I had a healthy degree of skepticism up front...I've become somebody extremely excited about working with possibilities of doing it this way."

So it's the old "new dimension of storytelling" malarkey we've been hearing for a year now. I think I'd be much happier if they just came out and said "We like the idea of larger 3D ticket prices because we like money very much." That sounds honest. 3D being "another draft of the story" is canned answer, bought at the bullsh*t factory but a few months past its expiration date.

What about Johnston?

"I think it tends to be overused and can be a little bit gimmicky...A lot of people are using 3-D now because they feel have they have to...that will come and go and the pictures that deserve to be in 3-D will continue to be. When it's done bad, it can make you carsick."

I appreciate your self-awareness, Mr. Johnston.

The full piece also mentions that they ran tests with a 3D camera for Captain America, the rig that supplied the clean, impressive 3D of Avatar, but "it was 'a nightmare' due to bulky gear, calibration issues and restricted filmmaking options."

There's no point in me getting worked up over this. I won't be seeing either film in 3D, I know that for sure. I'll save five bucks per ticket and not have to worry about muted colors and mutilated cinematography. Maybe the 3D bubble will have popped by next summer and I won't alone. Beats me. I'm not an expert.

But I know what I like. And it's not 3D.