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

[Petra_Kalbrain]

This thread is just going to become ANOTHER dumpster for all of the selfish, close-minded 3D haters to throw their trash into. It is getting a bit tiresome as almost every thread that has a post where the number "3" and letter "D" are combined somewhere therein turns into a ridiculously immature discussion between flogging the format and logical/reasonable rebutals stating the obvious "you don't have to watch it if you don't want to." Then the cycle continues and the deadhorse quickly becomes nothing but a giant puddle from the endless looping of the discussion.

To answer the OP, If I go to the theatre and have the option between 2D and 3D, I choose 3D everytime! So, I certainly do care if it dies. It is my preferred viewing choice. Even a bad 3D conversion enhances the "in the action" experience for me. The story is what matters most to me and 3D always helps me feel like I'm more part of the story than the 2D presentation does. Therefore it's 3D as often as possible for me!

If they ever do away with 2D presentations altogether, then I will continue to be happy. However, I will feel bad for those who have no choice. Still, it's not within my own personal power to do much about that should it come to pass in my lifetime.

[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.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by bluearth

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

only Scott has said this, Marty has been a vocal supporter of it but The Wolf of Wall Street will not be 3D (but it will be digital).

[toddly6666]

I originally supported it, but the majority of these 3D films are taking advantage of the movie-goer:

1. pseudo 3D
2. poor 3D projection
3. not enough theaters offering the 2D version

[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.*

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

I probably wouldn't care. Since they're currently working on glasses-less 3D, I doubt it'll be dying anytime soon. Oddly enough, the only things I really dislike are fee and the giant IN 3D banner that they slap under every new movie's title. It's so easy to just not watch a movie in 3D, I don't see the need to take it away from those who love it, just because I may not. What sucks is when the 3D combo packs are the ones that get all the goods, like extras and digital copies (for those of us who use them).

The poster of this thread framed the question as if 3-D were to die away (say the studios decide it wasn't worth the extra expense, for example) would you as a viewer really care? There is nothing implied in the question about denying 3-D effects to those who enjoy it. There seems to be a baseless assumption that those who don't care for 3-D effects are somehow trying to rob those who do like it of the experience.

Originally Posted by vegeta88

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 watched How to Train Your Dragon in both 2-D and 3-D, and never felt more "immersed" in the story when viewing it in the latter version. In fact, I find some of the 3-D effects distracting. I sometimes pay more attention to the neato effects, like a tree branch in the corner of the frame poking out at the audience, rather than to the story.

As for me, I'm ambivalent about 3-D movies. While I find the effects a fun gimmickry I really don't need it to enjoy a movie. I've been watching movies in the flat dimensions for over four decades (*BIG EDIT* Thanks, crazyBLUE) without ever feeling the need for 3-D, so I wouldn't really miss 3-D if it all faded away.

[Hatter]

Where's the I will rejoice when it dies option? (no offense to 3d enthusiasts, but I just hate this 3D craze in general. Avatar is the only exception)

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

The poster of this thread framed the question as if 3-D were to die away (say the studios decide it wasn't worth the extra expense, for example) would you as a viewer really care? There is nothing implied in the question about denying 3-D effects to those who enjoy it. There seems to be a baseless assumption that those who don't care for 3-D effects are somehow trying to rob those who do like it of the experience.


I watched How to Train Your Dragon in both 2-D and 3-D, and never felt more "immersed" in the story when viewing it in the latter version. In fact, I find some of the 3-D effects distracting. I sometimes pay more attention to the neato effects, like a tree branch in the corner of the frame poking out at the audience, rather than to the story.

As for me, I'm ambivalent about 3-D movies. While I find the effects a fun gimmickry I really don't need it to enjoy a movie. I've been watching movies in the flat dimensions for over forty decades without ever feeling the need for 3-D, so I wouldn't really miss 3-D if it all faded away.

Might want to change your last sentence from forty decades

[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.

[Rudeboy2025]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm mad at myself that I never watched Hugo 3D in theaters. I guess I'll watch it when I make the leap to 3D TVs. (Btw if some of you are wondering why I have so many 3D movies, b/c it's more economical sometimes as it usually includes the 2D along with it)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Might want to change your last sentence from forty decades

But Jesus doesn't want me to tell any lies. (He told me so. I hear his voice in my head all the time... all the time...must...obey...) Besides, there are lots of famous people born in the year of my birth who don't necessarily look old. (Charlie Sheen excepted.)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Will21st

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?

The myth still lives. Look, nobody is saying you should be denied the pleasure of 3-D movies. The original poster was simply asking if you'd care if the trend died off (for whatever hypothetical reason). A simply yes or no answer. He only stated the reasons why he wouldn't care if 3-D went away, and his answer seems logical to me. It's not a question of "haters" trying to take your toy away.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

The poster of this thread framed the question as if 3-D were to die away (say the studios decide it wasn't worth the extra expense, for example) would you as a viewer really care? There is nothing implied in the question about denying 3-D effects to those who enjoy it. There seems to be a baseless assumption that those who don't care for 3-D effects are somehow trying to rob those who do like it of the experience.

I'm not really assuming anything, to be honest, as I happen to be one of those who don't necessarily care for 3D. I see the 'big ones' in 3D, for the most part, but other than that, I wouldn't miss it if it disappeared tomorrow.

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

But Jesus doesn't want me to tell any lies. (He told me so. I hear his voice in my head all the time... all the time...must...obey...) Besides, there are lots of famous people born in the year of my birth who don't necessarily look old. (Charlie Sheen excepted.)

So, you are claiming you have been "watching movies in the flat dimensions for over forty decades "? Sorry J.J, but movies haven't been around for 400 years.

[in2video2]

I'm also ambivalent about 3D movies. I really don't need it to enjoy a movie. Watching movies in flat dimensions for close to five decades. I've seen 3D come and go a few times and its always about the "glasses" thing and the distraction various 3D systems have caused reminding the audience "Oh, I'm watching a movie"... only difference now appears to be the headaches that the number of patrons are experiencing and that really seemed to be a non-issue with earlier 3D movies from the mid 1950s. So I wouldn't really miss 3D if it all faded away. But for those who are keen on it - go for it. It all comes down to how profitable it remains for those studios still prepared to produce a worthwhile 3D movie experience; the moment 3D becomes a financial loss for studios that will surely spell its doom. No doubt 3D will resurface again. Now that we are moving forward from film to digital forward-thinking producers and directors are looking at old technology to transfer to digital experiences. 70mm (65mm negative) movies of the late 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s are resurfacing: Todd-AO, Super Panavision 70, Dimension 150 but only in the filming stage. The original film is not now intended to ever be screened. Instead it is now being transferred digitally for screening. The acclaimed producers of Baraka (1992) was filmed in Todd-AO and screened that way as a 70mm 6-Track presentation. Now August 24 2012 (this past weekend) Ron Fricke just released his new followup movie Samsara (2011) originally filmed in Super Panavision 70 6-Track but screened digitally for IMAX presentation. No glasses. Not a 3D movie but new technology combined with old technology to make an unforgettable movie experience where the audience feels immersed visual and sound wise watching the digital presentation on the huge curved screens which used to be the norm... and no need to wear glasses. Who knows - maybe 3D and this new technology may co-exist positively? The other advantage that Blu-Ray movie catalog collectors have noticed is the 65mm negative restoration/transfers to Blu-ray are so much clearer than 35mm negatives. New productions using this new cross-technology will become so much easier to create their Blu-ray cousins from their original Digital Disc Cinema presentation discs. Gone is the notion that "filming in 65mm is too costly" - it is no longer an issue since the original camera negative after editing is never intended to be screened. Instead it becomes the source for creating transfers to be used for digital cinema meaning clearer high definition IMAX/Cinema presentations. So the future looks bright. I wouldn't rule out 3D just yet. But the future will look and sound more natural as the years go by. Technology keeps on evolving. So in reply to our original question: I really don't care for 3D only because the glasses get in the way and distract me from appreciating the movie experience - currently I'd settle for the 2D counterpart. But just wait. The game is changing.

Source: In70mm.com

[500_Days_of_Night]

There's some movies that look absolutely amazing in 3D so it's hard for me to say that I'd like to see it over and done with.

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

[...]

I watched How to Train Your Dragon in both 2-D and 3-D, and never felt more "immersed" in the story when viewing it in the latter version. In fact, I find some of the 3-D effects distracting. I sometimes pay more attention to the neato effects, like a tree branch in the corner of the frame poking out at the audience, rather than to the story.

[...]

Understandable. That is why I said it enhances my experience. I get that it doesn't do it for many people. I also know that surround sound, big screens, and high definition do not factor in many people's experience or immersion. Honestly, I know people for whom a small TV playing a movie on VHS is the same as a big screen playing a BD with high end surround sound. It all comes down to individual experience. I personally get a much greater experience with a 3D film (native or superb conversion). That is why I don't like people calling it a gimmick. It isn't some cheap trick just because they don't find value in it. It is fairly subjective.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

I watched How to Train Your Dragon in both 2-D and 3-D, and never felt more "immersed" in the story when viewing it in the latter version. In fact, I find some of the 3-D effects distracting. I sometimes pay more attention to the neato effects, like a tree branch in the corner of the frame poking out at the audience, rather than to the story.

HTTYD was one of the best 3D experiences I've had at the theater. Really great flying sequences.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

This thread is just going to become ANOTHER dumpster for all of the selfish, close-minded 3D haters to throw their trash into.

I love how in almost every situation - movies or not - those who disagree with a small yet outspoken faction are accused of being "close-minded", as if there's something mentally wrong with them. Meanwhile, all those with apparent superiority complexes congratulate themselves on being "open minded", like they're somehow smarter than everyone else, just because they agree.

These days, when someone asks if I'm close-minded, I say, "Maybe, but I can afford to be; I'm right."