To 3D or not to 3D - that is the question...

[W-D Forties]

What do you all think of the current vogue for 3D films? Whilst I do enjoy the hokey appeal of the early 3D films, the current bunch leave me cold. I find the glasses a distraction and I always leave the cinema with a vague headache.

I didn't go to see Promethius recently because our local flea pit was only screening it in 3D by the time I could go. I personally find 3D uneccessary, if the story and visuals are good enough why the need to tart it up with 3D?

Does anyone out there love 3D, is it just me who's out of synch?

 

[scottyrocks]

Nah, I don't like it, either. I saw the Avengers in 3D and I found it distracting. When I saw it again with my daughter, we saw it in 2D and I enjoyed it more because I could focus on the movie and not the 3D.

 

[ButteMT61]

Nope. It's too dark, and the glasses hurt after 10 minutes. I always pass if I have a choice.You can buy nice 3-D glasses, which I'm considering for when I have no choice.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can't see 3D movies -- my eyes won't work with the glasses -- so it's a good thing for me that we don't show them and have no plans to ever show them. It's a fad, and like all fads, it's going to die out.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Yes. Just like the talkies and color movies.

I don't know about 3d. It seems to work well wth action movies which I never watch....

 

[Feraud]

I've found the 3D to be too dark and and a very forgettable part of most movies. Just another fad I can do without.

 

[Talbot]

Do they make them in black and white?

 

[Jaguar66]

IMAX 3D is bright enough to not feel as if it is too dark. Also IMAX 3D glasses fit well and are light enough so as not to be bothersome, I wear them while also wearing my normal glasses. I won't see a 3D movie unless I can see it at the IMAX at the Metreon in San Francisco. The sound quality of the IMAX at this theater is also the best I have ever heard. if you haven't seen a 3D movie at a high quality IMAX theater, your can't totally dismiss 3D format.

I agree that the other 3D formats (Real D cinema, Dolby 3D, XPandD 3D) produce images that are too dim. The best 3D films are those that are designed from the ground up to be in 3D. Films such as Avatar, designed to be in 3D and in the IMAX 3D format, are spectacular.

 

[Bugsy]

The technology is amazing, I suppose, but they can come up with huge screens, 3D, quad sound, etc, and still the film needs a good story, and acting. It seems to me that using all the latest high tech stuff is just a distraction so that people won't notice that there isn't much of a script.

 

[Edward]

I'm indifferent to it. Just like all the other bells and whistles, it is no substitute for good plot, story, script, acting... I'm not opposed to it, though, nor do I consider it an unrelenting evil the way some seem to. lol The glasses could be better for those of us who already wear spectacles (damned if I'm going to wear contacts just for the cinema) - I agree, IMAX are superior in that respect. The few 3D films I've seen actually used it quite well, in a way that added an extra texture to the visual experience without being intrusive. I've also seen a few of those films elsewhere without the 3D, and I didn't miss it as they were good enough to not need it. You could easily make the same arguments either way about colour, surround sound, and on and on... For me, the jump will be when they are able to do it without needing the glasses. My only real gripe about 3D that is specific to 3d is the simple fact that it adds a significant chunk onto the ticket price, which I certainly notice.

I do think if they can do it without the glasses that it will be here to stay for cinemas. Not sure how far it will catch on at home, though, bearing in mind the size of the average TV at home. I've tried 3D TV; the technology was impressive, but it limits the angle from which you can view and get the full effect, and it is greatly diminished in impact due to screen size. I really can't see it ever catching on at home until they can do it without the glasses. I certainly wouldn't be bothered with them all the time (though that said if it otherwise has everything I need and comes in at the right price, I won't be refusing to buy my next TV just because it does have that capability).

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

I watched the new Spiderman (2012) in 3D and like the movie o.k. They DO need some form of clip-on 3D glasses for those who DO wear glasses all of the time. As someone else stated on another thread, the depth is better with the 3D. The action sequences were better.

I don't that 3D will become universal. It's an additional expense, and not worth it for the average romantic comedy etc. Westerns, action pictures, and any Star Wars type movie will use it.

Just my $0.02

 

[Undertow]

I can't see 3D movies -- my eyes won't work with the glasses -- so it's a good thing for me that we don't show them and have no plans to ever show them. It's a fad, and like all fads, it's going to die out.

:arated:

 

[Talbot]

It seems to me that using all the latest high tech stuff is just a distraction so that people won't notice that there isn't much of a script.

Moe, Larry and Curly keep throwing stuff at the screen...

 

[jlee562]

Well, the thing about IMAX films is that most "IMAX" movies aren't even shot on IMAX film or cameras. That's a marketing gimmick too.

I'm not sold on 3d. It's a gimmick to make films more profitable by charging a premium.

If you're getting headaches, don't waste your money anymore. For some people's eyes, the 3d effect just doesn't work, or gives them a headache. I haven't seen a 3D movie yet that was so enhanced by the 3D that something would have been lost in a 2D presentation.

 

[W-D Forties]

The new Batman film was specifcally shot for the IMAX as Nolan doesn't rate 3D much (or overuse of CGI either, hurrah!)

I also really object to paying the extra, especially when you either end up with a drawer full of glasses or end up giving them back. If you must release films in 3D then let us take our own and not charge the extra!