why are ppl here against 3-D?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

I think Avatar will be what converts all the 3D bashers over. Once they see a James Cameron movie shot with actual 3D cameras (unlike the Harry Potter 5 ending which was shot in 2D then digitally converted to 3D) that is no "gimmicky" and has more then enough substance for the story then people will want more 3D and stop bashing it. And the reason studios want Digital 3D is not because of Digital projectors but because of piracy. Think about it would you want to watch a blurry 2D cam of a 3D movie or actually pay the money and go see it in 3D.

Actually, lately (as in last five years) it's been filmmakers (specifically Cameron, Jackson, & Lucas) who have been pushing studios and cineplexes to adopt 3D, because those are the movies they want to make.

[RiseDarthVader]

Yes that true but its studios like Dreamworks that have been forcing 3D for Monsters VS Aliens. But I can't thank George Lucas enough for giving us Digital cinema.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Yes that true but its studios like Dreamworks that have been forcing 3D for Monsters VS Aliens. But I can't thank George Lucas enough for giving us Digital cinema.

I will never understand why someone (Lucas) who has done so much for the advancement and edification of the art of film and home video is the target of so much hatred and vilification... especially from people who purportedly love his movies.

[P@t_Mtl]

Why am I against 3D? I am not against it, I know that many people love it. It's just a personal choice, I prefer watching movies in the old fashion way. It's very popular with kids as a format and many adults love it as well. I don't.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by yuriythebest

seems so many ppl here are against 3d for the home. I have a 3d monitor (an iz3d) and enjoy 3d gaming and watching the occasional 3d movie, which I find quite enjoyable as it adds depth and an overall feeling of immersion.

Seems to me all the criticisms here come from people who either thing 3d is still in it's 1950's red/cyan stage, or that "3d is unwatchable" or some other stuff like that.

I think mostly people think going to the occasional 3D flick is fine, but they wouldn't want to have to wear glasses all the time.

And, there is therefore the fundamental question of how people are going to react to the video release if the thrust in Hollywood is for more and more 3D theatrical movies?

People may get the conflicted between wanting to see the film as intended and not wanting to be uncomfortable doing so, and/or being unable to justify the hardware costs for 3D in the home.

Gary

[skygreenleopard]

Man, fans of 3D are pretty defensive around here.

My opinion is that it's often used poorly - someone mentioned shots of "3D for 3D's sake" of an axe coming at the audience. In addition, most of the movies they're used in are terrible. Monsters vs. Aliens was good, Avatar might be, but I can't remember a good 3D flick beyond those. My Bloody Valentine 3D? Please. That was a 2-hour gimmick. The sad part is that most movies are just like this.

I'm not ready to commit to spending thousands on a gimmicky technology. I can't see the tech going anywhere other than cheesy action movies or product placement. Blu-Ray has its picture and audio fidelity as its main selling point, which is why I love it. 3D, though, does little to add to the quality of most movies. There's no demand for Citizen Kane in 3D or No Country For Old Men 3-D. I'd rather watch The Godfather on VHS than some new movie that sucks in 3D.

[Chevypower]

I think that's going off on a tangent though. The subject is regarding the 3D technology, not that anyone thinks theres currently a good selection of titles available in 3D. Certainly, nobody has suggested that watching a crappy movie in 3D is better than watching a decent 2D movie. Does that prevent 3D becoming more mainstream in the future, even good, future classics? Absolutely not. The only way to honestly answer the question is "does 3D enhance the movie experience?" referring to the latest 3d technology, and comparing the same movie in 2d and 3d.

[MOONPHASE]

Not really against it but I will say it does tend to make my eyes and head hurt

[Hale-Bopp]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

I think that's going off on a tangent though. The subject is regarding the 3D technology, not that anyone thinks theres currently a good selection of titles available in 3D. Certainly, nobody has suggested that watching a crappy movie in 3D is better than watching a decent 2D movie. Does that prevent 3D becoming more mainstream in the future, even good, future classics? Absolutely not. The only way to honestly answer the question is "does 3D enhance the movie experience?" referring to the latest 3d technology, and comparing the same movie in 2d and 3d.

Well said! With that in mind, I firmly feel that Monsters vs. Aliens took advantage of this prospect. I think it's the first brick being laid for future 3-D movies that are actually worth watching and are enhanced by 3-D. I felt so drawn into the movie. I loved feeling like I'm right there with the characters and getting a stronger feeling for the environment they're in. I found myself more invested in the movie. During some of the shots where you're looking up at the giant robot destroying everything gave me a greater sense of awe, urgency and space, just like what the main characters would have experienced. That's something that wouldn't be considered gimmicky, but something that enhanced the experience by drawing me into it more. This is the kind of 3-D that I applaud.

I think with 3-D being taken more seriously now, we're going to see more quality movies in this format. Then we'll stop thinking about why 3-D exists and then start thinking about how we ever lived without it.

When Up comes out from Disney/Pixar, that's gonna put it over the top I bet. Then, when we get Avatar, this tech will be cemented in Hollywood movie making.

[aramis109]

The problem is that it's still relying on trickery to fool the eye. As a result, the eye is constantly trying to focus on something that it thinks is close, when in fact it's further away. Depending on the person's vision and and discrepancies between the eyes, this is going to cause eyestrain. It's not just "oh, it wasn't set up properly"- it has to do with the way vision works.

If they were able to make a true 3d picture, such as holograms (remember those old videogames- I forget the name, and it didn't work that well, but it IS feasible) then it'd be a different story. Until then, I doubt people are going to sit around the house, pass out some glasses and flip on the tube to watch TV or even their favorite flick.

I'd be curious to see any kind of study done on long-term usage and possible impacts on vision. I can't help but think it's not too hot on the eyes.

[Hale-Bopp]

Maybe I'm just lucky then, because I've experienced absolutely no eyestrain whatsoever with newer 3-D movies.

[GregBlu5]

I saw Journey To The Center of the Earth in 3D on Blu-ray. Didn't have eye strain, but the color was too sepia-toned for me to enjoy 3-D on a regular basis. If they can solve that, I'm OK with it.

[Chevypower]

I don't think there is any more "trickery" with 3D than there is with 2D. Sure, holograms may look more real yet again. Two cameras in sync, or a camera with two lenses and two video tracks record for left-eye and right-eye. It gets edited and mastered in sync. There are two ways to display it so your eyes only see the intended video channel. 1. A personal style display that fits over the eyes like a viewfinder. 2. A TV or projectors using polarized and cross polarized light where appropriated glasses blocks out what each eye is not meant to see. I can't see how this is "trickery." Maybe they will bring out polarized contact lenses? Surround sound, now that is trickery!

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by aramis109

The problem is that it's still relying on trickery to fool the eye. As a result, the eye is constantly trying to focus on something that it thinks is close, when in fact it's further away. Depending on the person's vision and and discrepancies between the eyes, this is going to cause eyestrain. It's not just "oh, it wasn't set up properly"- it has to do with the way vision works.

If they were able to make a true 3d picture, such as holograms (remember those old videogames- I forget the name, and it didn't work that well, but it IS feasible) then it'd be a different story. Until then, I doubt people are going to sit around the house, pass out some glasses and flip on the tube to watch TV or even their favorite flick.

I'd be curious to see any kind of study done on long-term usage and possible impacts on vision. I can't help but think it's not too hot on the eyes.

Doubt it all you want, but people will do it, just not you. Maybe not everybody, but some will. Try to resist the impulse to speak for everybody.

DVDave:In spite of technology it all comes down to telling a really good story. George Lucas was quoted as saying "A special effect without a story is a pretty dull thing." Guess George should have listened to his own advice.

(groan): Oh, good lord.

Maybe you should produce a franchise of films beloved by megamillions and hailed by academics as mythic storytelling, before you go presuming to belittle GL's storytelling ability.

[Sonny]

All the 3D movies out now are terrible, but in however many years it should be better.... I'm not worried about it. ^^^Keep defending it to the death!

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

Doubt it all you want, but people will do it, just not you. Maybe not everybody, but some will. Try to resist the impulse to speak for everybody.

LOL, do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Look, when the 3d stuff came on in the Superbowl, we all had our glasses, and we all "ooh'd" and "ahhh'd" over it. It was neat. But it was mostly neat because it was novel and it was short. I certainly cannot imagine anyone I know throwing on glasses on a regular basis to watch TV or movies. Having the technology built into the set or projector seems more probable. If this catches on, color me surprised, but thus far outside of the occasional 3D flick at the theater, this has almost no footprint currently.

[Hale-Bopp]

I will gladly put glasses on top of my glasses to enjoy me some 3-D. I did it twice this year in theaters and will do it plenty more times, because I really enjoy it that much. So while I may be in the minority on this now, I do believe it's catching on and will be fully mainstream this time next year, with many movies premiering in 3-D across more digital screens than ever before. It's inevitable. Embrace it or get left behind.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by DVDave

If he had told a good story with the Prequels rather than relying on silly cartoonish digital effects, I wouldn't have to.

If you're going to be one of those people that bashes CGI for being CGI, as if it's somehow inferior to any other form of animation, then you toss your credibility out the window and label yourself for what you are.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

If you're going to be one of those people that bashes CGI for being CGI, as if it's somehow inferior to any other form of animation, then you toss your credibility out the window and label yourself for what you are.

Some of us love the prequels too.

To me, digital techniques are just the latest in a long line of tricks. None of it's "real". It's all illusion.

[RiseDarthVader]

WHat sort of annoys me is that there a guys here that don't need prescription glasses that ***** and moan about putting some plastic polarised glasses on for 2 hours. Yet people requiring glasses have to put up with it everyday for several hours and they don't ***** and moan and cry about having to wear them.