I Couldn't Care Less About 3-D

[Duffy12]

I have only seen ONE movie in 3D so far so I really do not have an opion on it yet. However just thinking about only certian types of movies using it does make me .

For instance just imagine the Iron Man, LotRs or Hobbit movies using it.

[Hale-Bopp]

What 3-D does for me is enhance the movie experience. HD does the same thing. It enhances the experience. Therefore, if 3-D is a gimmick, then so is having HD movies at home. No difference there.

To expand on how it enhances movies, it pulls me deeper into the world that's been created. It helps me to be more intimate with the experience on the screen. Feeling what it feels like to be that much closer to the environment that the characters are experiencing brings you that much closer to feeling what they might feel like to be there. I like experiencing that. Mind you, I do realize this is all my opinion, but there are people who tend to share that opinion with me, since 3-D continues to outsell 2-D at the theaters.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Franin

Was it same where people were getting very excited about it? I guess its a bit like deja vu for you?

Yes...and in the 70s too. And it went away again. It will go away again.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yes...and in the 70s too. And it went away again. It will go away again.

Might it catch on this time? The last generation as now grown up with video games, 3D in movies is the type of thing that would attract them in big numbers. Maybe this time around 3D as a chance to make it?

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

Hmmm... you COULD care less about 3D, if you hadn't started this "I Couldn't Care Less About 3D" thread.

Good 1.

[SquidPuppet]

I have seen all the latest 3D films. And ones in the 70's. I am lucky. I dont get a headache from 3D, but I dont like it because...

1. Fast motion, and some stationary shots are blurry.
2. Colors are muted and hazy
3. Detail is lost
4. Too dark
5. Contrast is weakened

2D for me.

[Sussudio]

I think it could actually be great for documentaries. For movies, not so much (except the animated "kids" movies maybe).

[DavePS3]

I have to agree with the downside. I realize it's a way to get people back into theaters but long shots are out of focus, color is terrible... I cannot believe some like this effect. 3D was dead for me and after seeing it again recently... it shall remain so!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Might it catch on this time? The last generation as now grown up with video games, 3D in movies is the type of thing that would attract them in big numbers. Maybe this time around 3D as a chance to make it?

Well I sure cannot predict the future but my guess is, it aint gunna stick.

The kids/teens of the 60's didnt have video games, so you would think something as exotic as 3D would have been a big treat and stayed. Didnt happen.

Just the fact that it has come and gone a number of times tells me it wont have legs.

A lot of directors wont want to work with it either. Imagine a director trying to tell an earnest and serious story... he wont want this novelty distracting his audience from the meat of his work (the storytelling).

To me, 3D is a distraction from the STORY, not an enhancement.

The once-a-year animated silly cheesefest? Yes, I'll see that in 3D. But I want all my serious cinema in 2D. And that includes Sci-Fi and action films.

[kurtlingle]

I saw Avatar in 3D and thought it was great (visually). I rarely go 2x to see a movie - but thought - I'll never get to see this in 3D again if I don't see it again... so I did.

I hate the "old" 3D with colored lenses - but this "new" 3D is great. Not perfected yet - it has a way to go, and maybe the director needs to use it at the right time?

I noticed it took me 1/2 way through the film to get used to the 3D effect (both times I saw Avatar).

If I could get this effect at home, as a patch/update to my PS3 I'd buy the 3D version of Avatar. But, since it will require a new TV, a new player, I'll wait on 3D. I'm sure my next TV will support it and I'll upgrade my player at that time, once they "perfect" it.

It will be interesting to see if this is a next step in video, or just a fad, as some imply.

[dajaga]

after watching avatar 2 times and this is the first time i saw a movie in 3-d, i really enjoyed it, i think the 3-d did its job and good, i dont know how other movies are but avatar sets the standard for 3-d, it pulls you into the world but it doesnt get too gimmicky with stuff flying at you.

i think with a proper hometheater setup will do home 3-d justice, ie front projection, with 100inch or bigger screen 5.1 and the comfort of your own home.
i think 3-d has finally made a place and it`s moving in. i still remember people talking about widescreen t.v. and how they are weird to watch now every one loves em, the same goes for bluray.
once again with a proper setup this might be a very exciting experience in the home.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Franin

An Isf calibrator projector on a proper screen is better than a Kuro. But im not going to sit an argue here because without seeing it for yourself its not worth explaning it. The guys who have them will know what im talking about.

I have seen that as well.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Yes...and in the 70s too. And it went away again. It will go away again.

but all techs are taht way. Until something is done right they fail, Like I pointed out in an other thread (at least I think it was an other thread), before 5.1 surround quadraphonic (4 speakers one in each corner) failed miserably, before DVD, LD (higher quality video on disk instead of tape) failed. It is normal to have failures first. On the other hand 3D this time is done right (colours are not distorted like anaglyph), theatres and studios have/are investing big $, movies of different genres are getting the 3D treatment (not all of them, in the 70's and 80's it was B rated horror)

[Trogdor2010]

I found the new 3D processes much better. I have not seen Avatar, but I have seen UP when it was availible in 3D, while it isn't a necessity, that was one of the best looking theatrical presentations I have seen, the bad news is that all these movies are now shot digitally and don't look so good when converted to 35mm. You have to find a theater with 2d digital projectors for best results. The point of 3D is not crap fying around, but to give depth to the image and enchance the experience, again not a necessity, but it's much better than what I've seen before.

[illini2000]

I'm hoping they find a way to make the 3-D experience brighter. The last 3 movies I've seen in 3-D are Avatar, Up and The Final Destination. Each one has been too dark and I don't feel like I gained anything by 3-D (except for the final destination, that seemed to work, but was too dark also). Also, it shouldn't cost an additional $3. I don't want to wear glasses at home, either. It's cool that they'll make all this available for the people that want it, but like several others here, I don't really care and I wouldn't wait to purchase new components because of it.

[Duffy12]

It looks like that 'The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special: In 3D! on ice' at 8:30 will be in 3D!

Anybody have any cardboard 3D glasses laying around?

.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

It looks like that 'The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special: In 3D! on ice' at 8:30 will be in 3D!

Anybody have any cardboard 3D glasses laying around?

.

Yes, saw that last night was wondering if it was in 3D for real or if they were just kidding

[Duffy12]

Yeah, they were just kidding. I think that they had a short 3D snippet at the very end.

I used to love the show but I can't stand it anymore anyway.

.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I have seen all the latest 3D films. And ones in the 70's. I am lucky. I dont get a headache from 3D, but I dont like it because...

1. Fast motion, and some stationary shots are blurry.
2. Colors are muted and hazy
3. Detail is lost
4. Too dark
5. Contrast is weakened

2D for me.

You also forgot:

6. Ghosting
7. Induced Nausea (Due to the problems 1-6)
8. Glasses (Or double glasses for those with glasses)
9. Need 100" screen or more to enjoy it at home

Basically, the true purpose of 3D is to help dwindling box office numbers. Not to advance the industry technologically. Its a gimmick and history has shown that the average movie watcher gets wowed by new things at first. Time will tell whether this is a success or failure.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

So, all this talk ALREADY about 3D this and 3D that is getting old. I personally have no interest in 3D TV's, 3D made films and whatever else they feel like throwing 3D into.

I understand some people love 3D and that's fine if they want it, but I personally don't NEED it and feel it doesn't make a film any better.

I watch movies for story, acting, characters, dialogue, atmosphere and all sorts of other things, not for big 3D sequences. I understand it may help to "pull you in" (har har) but I'm not gonna go run out to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D just because it is - because that's not what films are about. It may make the experience better, but it doesn't make me more interested in seeing a film.

Reason I start this thread is because I just found out The Cabin in the Woods got delayed until 2011 so they could be upconverted to 3D. Great

your thoughts on 3D?

Follow the money. 3D consistantly gets more butts in seats and more $$ per butt. For your benefit, every 3D film so far has had a flat print as well.