Do "you" care if the 3D movie dies? If things went back to before without it

[Beachguy]

Do you care if the 3D movie dies?

Me? I personally don't. I'm part of the percentage that gets headaches and, for me, personally, I don't see how paying for something that gives my headache is cool - no matter how glitzy.

I also wouldn't mind the pay and ticket decrease.

[jayturner514]

While it is unique and remotely interesting, I could care less if it goes away. But, we all know that as long as the companies are making money off them, they will stay around

[cajmoyper]

I hate 3D. Hate it. The point at which a 3D movie makes less money than the extra the studios are paying to make it 3D has to be approaching right?

[NARMAK]

I know i'll end up in the minority right now but i actually really like it when it's done right. It really does help immerse me even more in some of these works of art and suck me in. Other times the content ends up with some of the 3D issues in the image that take me out of it but a proper 3D PQ version of any movie wins out for me everytime.

Only issue is i wear glasses and 3rd part glasses were the cheaper option and not that comfortable to wear unless i use contact lenses. Not a ideal solution but i'd take it.

[stvn1974]

Personally I don't care but people seem to like it so I hope it stays around for those who do. As long as non 3D showing is avaliable that is.

[MiC. UHD]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Personally I don't care but people seem to like it so I hope it stays around for those who do. As long as non 3D showing is avaliable that is.

I commend you for voicing your opinion in an intelligent manner. Most people who don't like 3D want it to go away. But as you stated, as long as both options are available to consumers then it makes everyone happy!

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Personally I don't care but people seem to like it so I hope it stays around for those who do. As long as non 3D showing is avaliable that is.

I also must give you props for understanding that some of us like it.

To those who say it is a gimmick, what do you really mean by that? I just wonder because I think it enhances my experience in that I am more immersed in the film, I feel much closer to the characters, sets, and story. I completely understand if it doesn't do that for you, it doesn't for my brother. But I personally enjoy it. So what does it mean when you say an added experience to a form of entertainment is a gimmick? In the very early days of cinema, higher class people thought film was a gimmick to be looked down upon. Like I said, I understand people not liking it and I really do understand not liking films using cheesy shots purely for 3D. But when done right, movies should be able to be viewed in either format perfectly well.

I believe the market will dictate the product. There are too many people who don't like 3D, can't see 3D, or prefer 2D that 3D will never take over. I do dislike when theater complexes only play 3D versions, there should always be an option. But I see people saying that as long as studios make money on 3D, it will be around. Can we go to the source? As long as people show support and a liking of 3D, it will be around.

[TheAnimeLegend]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Personally I don't care but people seem to like it so I hope it stays around for those who do. As long as non 3D showing is avaliable that is.

I agree with your opinion 100%

[MiC. UHD]

You have no idea the war that is about to ensue as a result of this thread!

With that being said, I am pro 3D. I love it, not every movie is a gimmick or cash grab. Most conversions affect consumer interest negatively. If studios used 3D as a way of enhancing the story instead of driving up ticket sales for pointless pop outs, then yes, 3D will have a flourishing life.

Mark my words though, the day that 3D without glasses is affordable, then 3D will explode and every hater will have nothing left to say.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by MiC. HD

Mark my words though, the day that 3D without glasses is affordable, then 3D will explode and every hater will have nothing left to say.

I do not suffer from headaches, or dizzyness. The glasses do not bother me at all. I just think it looks less "natural" than 2D. It looks too "deliberate" to me. Even the subtle stuff. I wouldnt watch them even if they were glasses-free and the tickets were cheaper.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I do not suffer from headaches, or dizzyness. The glasses do not bother me at all. I just think it looks less "natural" than 2D. It looks too "deliberate" to me. Even the subtle stuff. I wouldnt watch them even if they were glasses-free and the tickets were cheaper.

Well said, though I have to ask; What if your everyday sight in three dimensions, could be replicated on a glasses free 3DTV? How would you feel about the 3D then?

3D, like stereo sound and color, is an extension of our senses of sight and sound.

Back in the day, movies used to say "Now in color!" Or "With stereo Sound". Of course you didn't have to wear glasses to experience it, so it was easier to accept any possible increase in prices to produce that format.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Well said, though I have to ask; What if your everyday sight in three dimensions, could be replicated on a glasses free 3DTV? How would you feel about the 3D then?

3D, like stereo sound and color, is an extension of our senses of sight and sound.

Back in the day, movies used to say "Now in color!" Or "With stereo Sound". Of course you didn't have to wear glasses to experience it, so it was easier to accept any possible increase in prices to produce that format.

For me, the "flaw" lies in the focus. In our natural 3D eyesight we chose what we want to focus on, be it an object in the foreground, mid, or something farther away. Anything that we do not focus on, is naturally then out of focus. In 3D films I see things that would naturally be out of focus, are now in focus, and vice versa. That is why they appear unnatural to me and take me out of the movie.

[menaceuk]

3D ruins movies unless the movie has Scorcese or Cameron attached to it.

So no. don't care one bit if it died.

[42041]

3D, done well, is a great visual medium. The passion it stirs among the internet anti-3D contingent is amusing, but I don't believe those people represent the greater film-going public.

[Drewza89]

If every movie had 3D that looked as good as it did in Hugo, then I would pay the extra price for it every time. The Amazing Spider-Man was actually filmed in 3D (not a post-conversion), yet I could barely tell it was supposed to be in 3D until the part with the cranes near the end!

I don't know what kind of magic Scorsese pulled-off with Hugo, but I wish he'd let everyone else in on the trick.

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by bluearth

Martin Scorsese and Ridley Scott both vowed to have all their future movies in 3D

So now should we go against the look directors want for their movies?

My suggestion for the anti-3D babies who are furious over .05% of the movies every year being released in the format is to simply not watch them.

Now if you HAVE to see Paranorman that badly and 3D gives you headaches and you live in a stop on the road town that does not offer 2D, then, too bad. If 3D was as awful as those who find it trendy to hate on it believe it will die off soon and you wont have to worry about it. If it doesnt then YOU are the problem.

Thank you for offering an opinion on the very end of the measuring stick. This thread now has balance.

[Member-115369]

Don't care at all. I don't loathe 3D like some do, but I'm not a huge fan. It's kind of neat when well done in something like Avatar. But it doesn't make a movie better, and I'd generally prefer not to pay extra for it, not to have to wear glasses etc.

Maybe if the tech got better and didn't require glasses, and theaters stop charging a premium for it at that time I'd be more ok with it. But now I'll just keep mostly skipping 3D showings (which is easy to do since I'm in a major city) and only go if I'm going with a group of friends who want to see 3D (which thankfully most of my friends don't like paying extra for it either).

[Monarch_of_Media]

No, infact, I would prefer it! I can't stand 3D, never have been able to...Maybe it's because I have a slight depth perception problem that makes it just not work with my eyes, but I've always found it a huge waste of money.

*Edit: Just before anyone says it, when I said I would prefer it, I was telling the truth, I'd prefer 3D to never be a thing again, that said it's not that big a deal, as long as I can still get the movie in 2D. I just avoid the 3D version of films(which is what anyone who doesn't like 3D should do). I didn't post that in a way of implying that because I hate 3D it should go away, cause you like what you like, and who knows if I didn't have that Depth perception issue, and if the 3D effects actually worked on me(like I could see it) then I may like it.*

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Beachguy

Do you care if the 3D movie dies?

Me? I personally don't. I'm part of the percentage that gets headaches and, for me, personally, I don't see how paying for something that gives my headache is cool - no matter how glitzy.

I also wouldn't mind the pay and ticket decrease.

So because you get headaches nobody else is allowed to enjoy 3D? That's why you open a 3D hate thread? Ever so slightly pathetic,don't you think?

[Walts Ghost]

Would I care if it died off? Not really. But I know some people love it, and that's great. Some movies in 3D are actually pretty good, Hugo, Prometheus, and The Amazing Spider-man are the ones that really worked the best in it for me. Other than that, 3D hasn't really made me feel more immersed. That goes to IMAX for me. I'd much rather see the Future of film be IMAX over 3D, but that's just me. If people like 3D, awesome, more power to them. As long as we have both options, I'm happy.