What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[Karma16]

HI All,
This is a silly thread. But I'll chime in just to express my support of 3D. Like the rest of you I don't get dizzy, suffer eye fatigue, or mind the glasses at all. I think 3D is here to stay and I love it.

I do wish that the movement would get out of its infancy and make really good, serious movies where 3D is not the sole focus. This will happen after the gee whiz stage is passed. I'm not happy with the selection of movies or the premium expense. Some day 3D will be as ubiquitous as color. I hope that day comes fast.

Sparky

[Big3dfan]

Originally Posted by sokrman14

Why is Hollywood pushing 3D so much? Disney finally figured it out by cancelling its re-release of Little Mermaid on 3D. Haven't they figured out that 3D is purely a gimmick that "almost" no one likes. I haven't posted on this forum in a really long time; but I couldnt help myself with this little rant.

No one wants to wear glasses!
No one wants to get dizzy!
No one wants aching eyes!

The only reason people buy 3D TV's is because it happens to be included in the TV they want. I bet if you put identical TV's in 3D and non 3D on the market and charged a little less for the other identical TV, practically no one would pay for it, hence the low penetration rate of 3D blurays.

Sorry for my rant, but thanks for reading. Go ahead and bash for those few who enjoy 3D.

because we are idiots who got conned into buying these 3D displays by the wall street corporate conglomerate Illuminati national treasure da vinci code harry potter dumbldore.

[5th Of November]

I saw Avatar at the theater in 3D. I haven't been to a 3D movie since. The glasses didn't give me a headache or make me dizzy, they just annoy the hell out of me. I'm fortunate enough not to need glasses or contacts for everyday use. I don't even own a pair of sunglasses. For me to have to wear something on my face, while I'm wanting to relax and watch a movie, just so that my eyes can be tricked into seeing something that really isn't there, will never fly with me. 3D, in it's current form, is dead to me.

[Tok]

I am so sick of the glasses argument. How often do you actually view 3D content? At most I wear my shutter glasses once a week for one movie. Are the glasses that much of deterrent? I would guess that most everyone has a pair of sunglasses in their vehicle.

The glasses argument is such a weak one.

[5th Of November]

Originally Posted by CraigW

The glasses argument is such a weak one.

Too bad. If they want $16 for a ticket. They need to come up with a better solution. I go to the movies for entertainment, not discomfort. Those of you that accept 3D's current limitations are free to continue supporting it.

[Karma16]

HI All,
Has anyone noticed that none of this years Academy Best Picture nominees are 3D? Well, maybe Pi, not sure. But basically this underlines my point that until the best movies, both current and re-releases, are available in 3D, the 3D era is not truly arrived. Be patient Sparky, be patient!

Along the same lines, Roger Ebert's Great Movies books each contain Ebert reviews and descriptions of 100 movies that he considers to be the greatest movies ever made. That's a total of 300 great movies made over a time frame of over one hundred years. Do you know how many are in 3D or converted to 3D? Exactly zero!!!!

Sure, I understand that the 3D process is new in its current incarnation. But there have been older incarnations, in the mid-fifties, where it appeared that 3D might make a serious move but it didn't happen for a number of reasons. So, it is not a guarantee that the current 3D movement will be ultimately successful. The long term prospects are highly dependent on quality movies being released in 3D and not just movies to show off the technology. 3D should be as natural as walking into a room. It is not that way now.

It's encouraging that Jurassic Park is being re-released in 3D early this year. Should be spectacular. Put me on the list.

BTW, if you are a movie buff, you should get Ebert's books. There is no better way to guide your purchases or movie enjoyment. Available through Amazon.

Sparky

[BigJayJay]

Originally Posted by CraigW

I am so sick of the glasses argument. How often do you actually view 3D content? At most I wear my shutter glasses once a week for one movie. Are the glasses that much of deterrent? I would guess that most everyone has a pair of sunglasses in their vehicle.

The glasses argument is such a weak one.

I agree. It's a very weak argument since wearing glasses in some form is pretty common. Either for prescriptions or style, glasses are not unusual. Some ppl act like the 3d glasses requirement is like wearing a gas mask or something. Please, gimme a break with the lame excuses.

If you don't like something, fine, who cares. But let the ppl that do enjoy it. If you don't like then don't watch. Real easy to do.

[jerzdawg]

Originally Posted by Karma16

HI All,
Has anyone noticed that none of this years Academy Best Picture nominees are 3D? Well, maybe Pi, not sure. But basically this underlines my point that until the best movies, both current and re-releases, are available in 3D, the 3D era is not truly arrived. Be patient Sparky, be patient!

Along the same lines, Roger Ebert's Great Movies books each contain Ebert reviews and descriptions of 100 movies that he considers to be the greatest movies ever made. That's a total of 300 great movies made over a time frame of over one hundred years. Do you know how many are in 3D or converted to 3D? Exactly zero!!!!

Sure, I understand that the 3D process is new in its current incarnation. But there have been older incarnations, in the mid-fifties, where it appeared that 3D might make a serious move but it didn't happen for a number of reasons. So, it is not a guarantee that the current 3D movement will be ultimately successful. The long term prospects are highly dependent on quality movies being released in 3D and not just movies to show off the technology. 3D should be as natural as walking into a room. It is not that way now.

It's encouraging that Jurassic Park is being re-released in 3D early this year. Should be spectacular. Put me on the list.

BTW, if you are a movie buff, you should get Ebert's books. There is no better way to guide your purchases or movie enjoyment. Available through Amazon.

Sparky

have you considered if any of Eberts movies would actually benefit from 3d? Lets be honest, some of the best 3d is animation or scifi, both of which are usually considered the red-head step child in the "review" world. I wont even mention horror since reviewers love to crap all over those. I pick the movies based what entertains me.. not what some old guy is going to say. So as I said earlier.. if money is to be made on 3d it will continue.

[Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Karma16

HI All,
Has anyone noticed that none of this years Academy Best Picture nominees are 3D? Well, maybe Pi, not sure. But basically this underlines my point that until the best movies, both current and re-releases, are available in 3D, the 3D era is not truly arrived. Be patient Sparky, be patient!

Along the same lines, Roger Ebert's Great Movies books each contain Ebert reviews and descriptions of 100 movies that he considers to be the greatest movies ever made. That's a total of 300 great movies made over a time frame of over one hundred years. Do you know how many are in 3D or converted to 3D? Exactly zero!!!!

Sure, I understand that the 3D process is new in its current incarnation. But there have been older incarnations, in the mid-fifties, where it appeared that 3D might make a serious move but it didn't happen for a number of reasons. So, it is not a guarantee that the current 3D movement will be ultimately successful. The long term prospects are highly dependent on quality movies being released in 3D and not just movies to show off the technology. 3D should be as natural as walking into a room. It is not that way now.

It's encouraging that Jurassic Park is being re-released in 3D early this year. Should be spectacular. Put me on the list.

BTW, if you are a movie buff, you should get Ebert's books. There is no better way to guide your purchases or movie enjoyment. Available through Amazon.

Sparky

Yes Life of Pie is 3D. So no best picture this year (except that one) is in 3D.

[Karma16]

Originally Posted by jerzdawg

have you considered if any of Eberts movies would actually benefit from 3d? Lets be honest, some of the best 3d is animation or scifi, both of which are usually considered the red-head step child in the "review" world. I wont even mention horror since reviewers love to crap all over those. I pick the movies based what entertains me.. not what some old guy is going to say. So as I said earlier.. if money is to be made on 3d it will continue.

HI jerz,
I believe you have never seen Ebert's books. And, let me guess, very few of the movies he writes about. But, you are right, many would not benefit from 3D. But, also many would. You see, I think you are still into the gee whiz aspect of 3D. Once you get tired of that, you, and many others, will want a naturalistic presentation which can only be had from 3D. In fact, if 3D does not get to that point of accomplishment, 3D will not survive. Further, if all new movies, of all types, are not released in 3D, then 3D will not survive.

I have been going through my extensive DVD library using simulated 3D just to answer the question you posed. In spite of the fact that simulated 3D is not as good as the real thing, many of my best movies benefit.

You must face the fact that not all of us demand 3D exaggeration. A naturalistic presentation will work just fine, thank you.

Sparky

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by sokrman14

Why is Hollywood pushing 3D so much? Disney finally figured it out by cancelling its re-release of Little Mermaid on 3D. Haven't they figured out that 3D is purely a gimmick that "almost" no one likes. I haven't posted on this forum in a really long time; but I couldnt help myself with this little rant.

No one wants to wear glasses!
No one wants to get dizzy!
No one wants aching eyes!

The only reason people buy 3D TV's is because it happens to be included in the TV they want. I bet if you put identical TV's in 3D and non 3D on the market and charged a little less for the other identical TV, practically no one would pay for it, hence the low penetration rate of 3D blurays.

Sorry for my rant, but thanks for reading. Go ahead and bash for those few who enjoy 3D.

I love the pot stirring troll topics, always good times.

I double dog dare somebody to head over to the blu-ray side of the forum and post how 2d sucks lol, I could only imagine the butthurt that would come from such a topic haha

[jerzdawg]

Originally Posted by Karma16

HI jerz,
I believe you have never seen Ebert's books. And, let me guess, very few of the movies he writes about. But, you are right, many would not benefit from 3D. But, also many would. You see, I think you are still into the gee whiz aspect of 3D. Once you get tired of that, you, and many others, will want a naturalistic presentation which can only be had from 3D. In fact, if 3D does not get to that point of accomplishment, 3D will not survive. Further, if all new movies, of all types, are not released in 3D, then 3D will not survive.

I have been going through my extensive DVD library using simulated 3D just to answer the question you posed. In spite of the fact that simulated 3D is not as good as the real thing, many of my best movies benefit.

You must face the fact that not all of us demand 3D exaggeration. A naturalistic presentation will work just fine, thank you.

Sparky

Def have not read his book(s). A quick look on Amazon I can page through the TOC to see his picks. Godfather, Its a Wonderful Life, Gone with the Wind - certainly sounds like the usual "top movies" and I can safely say I have no interest in movies like that in 3d. Can you give an example of a movie that would "need" to be done in 3d to survive? I dont need 3d exaggeration, I appreciate just the added depth of movies.. I dont need pop out of screen effects like in Sammys adventure. So please give some examples of the movies roger picks that would benefit from 3d.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Glasses are an issue for some people. It's a personal thing. Like, you can't say; "3D sucks because I hate glasses!" Maybe; "3D sucks for me..." or something. But it's the argument I hear in real life for legitimate reasons.

My mate who didn't know his TV was 3D, said he hates wearing glasses. He isn't a movie buff. Watches movies with mates, while drinking. Moving around the house. Lying down, or viewing from somewhere across the room. Not at all like us, but still a real person who enjoys movies in his own way.

Another friend had some serious problems when I had my Sammy. I thought he was gonna have a seizure, and we went outside to have a smoke instead. My son would like to turn off his glasses during the movie, and urge everyone to do the same. "It looks better!" he'd say; "Not as dark."

3D's great. But will not take off in its current flawed form. There was an article by the Looper director where he said 3D is like colour. A natural development, but unfortunately in its technicolour stage. This sits right with me. 3D will standardize and improve over the next decade and one day everyone will be able to appreciate the art!

[Daytrader]

Originally Posted by sokrman14

No one wants to wear glasses!
No one wants to get dizzy!
No one wants aching eyes!

Strange, i don't have any of thouse problems, also all my friends now have a 3D tv and love it, would not dream of buying a screen without 3D included now, also, what about the billions of people that wear glasses 24/7 every day of there life ? they don't moan, so i don't mind having them on for just 90/120 minutes once every few days, and they have to wear them just for a boring thing like reading or seeing

[Irrob]

So, to summarize: Some people have a problem with 3D and others don't.

Can I put a bow on this now?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Irrob

So, to summarize: Some people have a problem with 3D and others don't.

Can I put a bow on this now?

Aw, c'mon, can't some of us old Disney Tiana/John Carter defenders have a nasty snicker at the puppy-dog wishfulness with which the poor, naive, headline-vulture troll wanted to say "Disney dropped Little Mermaid because they hate 3D! "
When we all KNOW by now Disney dropped it because they didn't realize they were stupid enough to put Monsters Inc. in theaters one freakin' week after Bilbo Baggins?*

....

...Eh, you're right, there's no fun in that either, let's move on.

-----
* - C'mon, whatever happened to the days when the first Monsters Inc. could joke about opening in theaters one week after Harry Potter 1! They used to be such good sports about it!

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Irrob

So, to summarize: Some people have a problem with 3D and others don't.

Can I put a bow on this now?

I think haters, and especially the 3D blind are scared that 3D will replace 2D. If they lived where I lived they wouldn't think of it. There's 5 2D showings for every 3D one. But this isn't the case in some American towns, which I'm only assuming a large amount of haters come from. And rightfully so. I don't want to spend the premium, and I like 3D!

But, I predicted in one of these threads (maybe this one... too many hate threads... merge?) that it will standardize and improve, and maybe even the 3D blind can go to a movie, pay a normal price, not wear glasses and still see a perfect image? Speculation, I know, cause I don't fully understand the tech, or how it could improve.

Keanu Reeves said in Side by Side that the current 35mm cameras, whilst not in production any more, will last for decades. And not all digital films are 3D. So I don't see much cause for concern unless, as stated before, they don't show 2D in your town and you simply can NOT enjoy 3D (3D blind in the eyes or the wallet).

There will always be a 2D blu, digital copy or DVD in any case. But yeah, I understand wanting to experience it on the big screen, or IMAX, without having to wait for an inferior viewing experience at home (well, some of our homes! There's some pretty amazing galleries on this site! Anyone seen the Frey Theater? Oh my god!)

[Captain Kirk]

How do people think they are going to see 3D film without glasses right now? R2D2 isn't going to be projecting messages in front of you for at least a few more years.

If people can wear sunglasses a few hours a day, they can survive a 2 hour movie (on average) with the same thing on. They can pretend they are Corey Hart and get over it.

Obviously 3D is showing profitable since most of the weekend splits are 50% or more 3D when it's an option.

[MovieFanatic2010]

Wonder why "sokrman14" who started this thread has not replied to our arguments on why we love 3D ?

[sxerunner]

I'm not even that big of a 3D supporter, but OP, calm your shit down. Different strokes for different folks.