3D Blu-ray Disc QUESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS and GENERAL DISCUSSION Thread

[mredman]

Originally Posted by BMM

It's a gimmick. 3-D has been around since the 50's and has never gone "mainstream" so there's no reason on earth to believe it will catch on this time around. It's a cool thing for an event movie like Avatar, but to think people will be putting on glasses in their homes to watch TV channels and movies all the time is a stretch IMHO.

Yep thats what i keep saying nobody would watch EVERY movie with just 3D. People want the option to watch movies normal also and thats 2D.
People would go insane or lose vision sight on their eyes in no time if this fad becomes mainstream

[ckenisell]

Yes. It's a great big huge gimmick designed to get us to like something that we really don't.

[jamal2]

I like how woefully ignorant all the "3D is a gimmick" people are of current events. You realize practically every major TV manufacturer is announcing the production of 3D-capable sets at CES this week right? Do you honestly think all these billions of dollars worth of R&D is being thrown away on a temporary fad? Lol 3D is coming whether you like it or not.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by jamal2

I like how woefully ignorant all the "3D is a gimmick" people are of current events. You realize practically every major TV manufacturer is announcing the production of 3D-capable sets at CES this week right? Do you honestly think all these billions of dollars worth of R&D is being thrown away on a temporary fad? Lol 3D is coming whether you like it or not.

Gimmick doesn't mean fad. They're saying "gimmick" because a lot of the 3D effects feel like a gimmick. You shouldn't need 3D to enjoy a movie.

I myself find the technology interesting, but have no use for it. Pretty much all of my friends and family feel that 3D is more of an annoyance than anything. They're not a fan of the glasses, dull picture, or headache they get from it. And yes, I am talking about polarized 3D.

So while I find the technology interesting, there's no way I'll rush out and upgrade my equipment for it.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by jamal2

I like how woefully ignorant all the "3D is a gimmick" people are of current events. You realize practically every major TV manufacturer is announcing the production of 3D-capable sets at CES this week right? Do you honestly think all these billions of dollars worth of R&D is being thrown away on a temporary fad? Lol 3D is coming whether you like it or not.

I agree. My post was sarcasm.

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by jamal2

I like how woefully ignorant all the "3D is a gimmick" people are of current events. You realize practically every major TV manufacturer is announcing the production of 3D-capable sets at CES this week right? Do you honestly think all these billions of dollars worth of R&D is being thrown away on a temporary fad? Lol 3D is coming whether you like it or not.

And I like how woefully ignorant the manufacturer is to jump into developing this technology when consumers are still in the HD upgrading stage. It's going to be the same as regular Hi-Def - only a very small demographic are going to bite on the technology dangling in front of them and they will only get a very minimal and very expensive difference in quality and experience (at least for the first few years). It will be a long long time before the majority of consumers "upgrade" to this gimmicky for the time being product. It's all about a race to develop these technologies for the manufacturers and getting them patented so that they can be the first to develop and distribute.

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Gimmick doesn't mean fad. They're saying "gimmick" because a lot of the 3D effects feel like a gimmick. You shouldn't need 3D to enjoy a movie.

I myself find the technology interesting, but have no use for it. Pretty much all of my friends and family feel that 3D is more of an annoyance than anything. They're not a fan of the glasses, dull picture, or headache they get from it. And yes, I am talking about polarized 3D.

So while I find the technology interesting, there's no way I'll rush out and upgrade my equipment for it.

Perfectly stated.

[42041]

i wonder how many of the "i hate 3d" people have surround sound? for something that apparently is so much less inconvenient than putting on a pair of goddamn plastic glasses, these speakers sure cost a lot of money andtake up a lot of room

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by 42041

i wonder how many of the "i hate 3d" people have surround sound? for something that apparently is so much less inconvenient than putting on a pair of goddamn plastic glasses, these speakers sure cost a lot of money andtake up a lot of room

Last time I checked, I don't wear speakers on my eyes...

[DarkDune]

The 3D in Avatar was occasionally "gimmicky". For the most part though, they made good use of it. I got Vertigo every time the camera followed some poor soul falling off a tree or cliff.

It was very cool!

[jamal2]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

You shouldn't need 3D to enjoy a movie.

That is a ridiculous straw man - nobody has ever once stated or even implied this. Proponents of 3D tout it as a way to ENHANCE your viewing experience, not a necessity for enjoying a movie or tv program. It's a means to further immerse yourself in your entertainment, much like surround sound.

Originally Posted by ckenisell

I agree. My post was sarcasm.

I know

Originally Posted by aggienader08

And I like how woefully ignorant the manufacturer is to jump into developing this technology when consumers are still in the HD upgrading stage.

Well considering the 3D tech will probably be a standard feature in all new sets within the next couple of years, this shouldn't really be an issue, should it?

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

Yes. It's a great big huge gimmick designed to get us to like something that we really don't.

Yup, just think of how many crappy movies will come out just because of 3-D and how many will go to see them just because of it. Hell, until Avatar, i cant even think of a popular 3-D movie or a good one i should probably say. and I think people see Avatar for the effects, not for the movie itself. Maybe im wrong...

[sasquatch]

After seeing Avatar in 3D I'm a 3D snob now. I loved it. I want to see every movie like this now.

I can't wait for the day when the entire movie is shown all around you, ceiling, floor, walls, etc so that you actually feel like you're in the movie.

No, wait. A day where you actually a part of the movie.

No no, even better:you get to choose a role in the movie! Yeah, that's it. And watch the movie from that actor's viewpoint!

Ok, I'm getting carried away.

But seriously, I love the 3D.

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by sasquatch

After seeing Avatar in 3D I'm a 3D snob now. I loved it. I want to see every movie like this now.

I can't wait for the day when the entire movie is shown all around you, ceiling, floor, walls, etc so that you actually feel like you're in the movie.

No, wait. A day where you actually a part of the movie.

No no, even better:you get to choose a role in the movie! Yeah, that's it. And watch the movie from that actor's viewpoint!

Ok, I'm getting carried away.

But seriously, I love the 3D.

This is called Uncharted 2 on the PS3

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by jamal2

That is a ridiculous straw man - nobody has ever once stated or even implied this. Proponents of 3D tout it as a way to ENHANCE your viewing experience, not a necessity for enjoying a movie or tv program. It's a means to further immerse yourself in your entertainment, much like surround sound.

My point was for films that do obvious things to make you go "oh look at this, this is in 3D!!!" Which is also why we use the term "gimmick" because that's what those types of things are.

And just like sound, if not done right, 3D can be more of a distraction than an enhancement.

[jamal2]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

My point was for films that do obvious things to make you go "oh look at this, this is in 3D!!!" Which is also why we use the term "gimmick" because that's what those types of things are.

But the current crop of 3D programming has clearly been steering away from those kinds of shenanigans, and towards giving you a more immersive depth of field to enhance your viewing experience (in 2009 alone, re: Coraline, Avatar, Up, Monsters Vs. Aliens, Toy Story double feature, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, etc). So why is your point even remotely relevant?

[42041]

Up and the Toy Story double-feature in 3D were great. Not gimmicky at all, just another layer of immersion into the film. As the novelty wears off, which I imagine will happen in the next 2 years, the movies that point stuff in your face are going to go away.

[Franin]

Originally Posted by 42041

Up and the Toy Story double-feature in 3D were great. Not gimmicky at all, just another layer of immersion into the film. As the novelty wears off, which I imagine will happen in the next 2 years, the movies that point stuff in your face are going to go away.

Exactly it's a novelty.

[Franin]

I'm curious how many people who are for 3D and were immensley impressed with are going by the projector route and do it by a large screen?

[Spymaster]

Originally Posted by jamal2

Do you honestly think all these billions of dollars worth of R&D is being thrown away on a temporary fad? Lol 3D is coming whether you like it or not.

That's what a lot of people said about HD-DVD and look what happened to that!

Look, at the end of the day it comes down to a simple question: are people going to spend thousands of dollars on glorious pin-sharp new displays so that they can sit and watch a handful of movies in their living rooms wearing dark sunglasses.

And as for this "backwards capability", i.e. Hollywood's greedy desire to sell us the same old movies again but this time in 3-D, I no more want to watch Star Wars in 3-D than I want to watch a 2.35:1 aspect movie in 4:3, or watch a Laurel And Hardy movie in colour!