3D Love it or Hate it

Yes, I was watching Beowulf on Sky the other night and it's the same with that. You can spot the parts that were originally meant to show off the 3D and it's distracting.

Personally, I'm fed up of this 3D fad now. You have to wear those daft glasses and pay extra for the tickets and for what? To see films with drained colour and distracting, unnatural-looking effects, that can make you feel dizzy, or give you a headache. Great.
 
IMAX cinemas were NOT specifically made for 3D movies. IMAX cinemas were created to show high-resolution films on a very large screen.

And I am certainly not the only person who has a problem with 3D...look at the many comments on this forum from people who also don't rate it very highly, complain of headaches, eyes watering, fuzzy images, distracting etc.

History has always shown that 3D has always been a fad for a couple of years, yet soon died out.
 
If a movie is good enough it will be immersive all on it's own without needing to rely on 3D to do so.



Firstly what world do you live in, "made 3D great again"? Please explain to me this great era of 3D movies from the past?

Secondly why do you think people are going to see Avatar? The vast majority of people aren't going expecting some masterpiece of storytelling, they are going because it no doubt looks fantastic at the cinema in 3D. The only thing I ever hear people praising are the 3D and technical aspects of the film (that's fine in it's own right, the only reason I would watch 2012 is for the effects). So quite obviously millions more people are going to go and see the 3D version as it is basically the films selling point and all it offers, without that the film is what?



Millions of people think Boyzone are great (you could use endless examples for this point) it doesn't change the fact they are utter gash though, popularity has very little bearing on quality. Judging from this thread there are plenty of people who have reservations about 3D.



Yeah yeah I and many others have heard it all before with 3D. No doubts 3D as come a long way and no doubt it can be an enjoyable cinematic experience but it's still a gimmicky fad, just like the time before and the time before that.

But if you enjoy it then more power to you, i'll continue to enjoy half assed 2D movies :)
 
Thanks for posting those numbers. :)

How interesting. I wonder how many of those people that saw it in 2D wanted to see is in that way as they don't like or aren't interested in the 3D stuff and how many took that option as the 3D screenings were sold out and they couldn't wait to see the film?

As I previously said I think the best comparrison would be to open a film in 2D for a month or two, take it out the cinema, leave it a few months then release the 3D version for a few months and see what the box office is then.
 
I liked it when I watched final destination, as it was my first time, and it distarcted me from a bad film.
when I watched a christmas carol I though, damn my eyes are tired, and this film is shit.

So one the gimmick is gone, it doesn't matter how good the effects are, if the film is bad, its not going to save it.

I shall reserve judgement until I have seen Avatar, and Alice in wonderland
 
Today I saw Alice in Wonderland which was my first 3D film in the cinema. I've seen Coraline on DVD in 3D and stopped the disc and watched the rest in 2D as it was spoiling my enjoyment of the film.
Now seeing it in the big screen with "better" glasses, I still wasn't impressed and found it distracting and made things look odd. It all seemed gimmicky to me, as if every so often something is done to make the viewers go cool or wow.
There is a butterfly at the end that I admit is very impressive but that was it.
I have no interest in Avatar, but if I were to go see it then I now know to see it in 2D as 3D does nothing for me
When the 3D channels on Sky are launched I'll be saving my money and not subscribing to them.
 
Wow what a reply LOL

It's funny how people egt so worked up about 3D, HD etc when someone says they don't like it or think it's overrated.

I find it a gimmick because it's something that is unnecessary and used to make a film get noticed.
Before you posted this I was sitting on the bus thinking about Avatar and how much money that film would realistically have made if it was only in 2D. As high as 90% what it took? 70% 50% 30% less, who knows?

As you rightly point out millions more did go and see the 3D version of Avatar compared to the 2D version. That wouldn't have aything to do with all the hype and attention the film is getting of course. The hype behind the whole thing including the 3D is one of the reasons I have no interest in the film. It may be the cinema equivlant of the creation of the universe and I still don't want to see it because I'm bored of hearing about it. Isn't it interesting how we had TDK this TDK that and now it's gone so quiet and now it's Avatar this and Avatar that. So presumably TDK (another film I've not seen or have interest in thanks to the hype) has now been found out as not be what people have made it out to be and has been found out to be "just another movie."

As far as distractions go. It's a distraction when the 3D effect draws your attention away from what is happening. The scene I mentioned in Alice earlier. You have Alice and The Hatter talking. As the shot pans out they are still talking, moving but I get distracted from looking at them by the root of a tree that is doing nothing. It just appreas on the screen in front of me. Had it not been in 3D I wouldn't have even noticed it and continued to look at the performances.. This shows that it is a distraction, for me.

Interestigly there are a lot of movie critics worldide that have been critical of Avatar. Yes they say the technology is amazing blah blah blah, but once you get passed the "showy stuff"and get onto the actual story they say the film isn't that great. That is why so many of the critics are hoping The Hurt Locker wins the Oscar tomorrow. In their opinion it's a better and more complete film.

Many say if it weren't for the fact the Academy has decided to have 10 nominations to allow big blockbuster and box office films to get nominated after so many were critical the TDK didnt get a nomination and because of the 3D stuff, Avatar would only have got the techie nominations and nominated in the Animation section.

I'm not sure you need to shout "3D IS NOT GOING AWAY and REMEMBER. NO ONE'S FORCING YOU TO WATCH IT. To do that is a bit strange and aggresive but never mind.

You are right 3D isn't going to go away because it makes money as people like to see it. The same way rap, jazz, blues, classical and other forms of music isn't going to go away. There are people that like it and will pay to listen to it.
You are also right no one is forcing us to watch it, but then nobody is forcing you not to watch it, so where's the problem?

If a law was passed that "every" film made from 2011 onwarRAB is made in 3D then it is. People will either watch them or they won't. If a no films were ever made again, then they aren't. I'm sure people will find other things to do with their lives. I really can't understand why people get so irrate if somebody says they don't like something that is new and the "in thing." It's almost as if people are scared that is people say they don't like it then it will get taken away and they'll have to go without.

Please go and watch 3D films, if they make hologrpahic films go and watch them as well Enjoy them, collect them. but please don't get so wound up when people make up their own minRAB and say they don't like them. The bottom line is noth you and them are only expressing their opinion which means it can never be wrong.
 
The 3D on Avatar was excellent and by far the best example of 3D in the way that it mainly just added depth to the image, thus increasing the viewers immersion ('Up' was a good example too). It's just a shame that most 3D films tend to just use it as a gimmick by throwing shit at the audience ('My Bloody Valentine' and 'The Final Destination').

If it's done right and it suits the style of the film then i'm all for it. I am a little disappointed to learn that Ridley Scott is supposedly doing his 'Alien' prequel in 3D though. Hopefully he wont just use it as a gimmick.
 
My local cinema showed Avatar in 2D on one screen at awkward times (latest showing being 5:40pm). It showed it in 3D on multiple screens every 30 mins until nearly midnight. One wonders how much of the skewing of 3D/2D sales of the film come from cinemas enforcing that upon the customer, rather than a customer making a conscious choice?

Personally, I don't like 3D - and it's not for want of trying, but it's not for me. I find it a distracting and unpleasant experience. I want to see Alice, but if I want to see it in 2D, I'll have to see it straight from work. In 3D, I'd have a choice of times all evening. That's not consumer choice.
 
I wouldn't be disappointed if there were suddenly no more 3D films made... but then, as long as they offer both the 3D version and the 2D version at the same time of release, I don't see why one would get mad towarRAB 3D films.

If they started only offering 3D versions, that's when you can get upset.
 
I can't really be bothered with it. I usually just find it distracting.

If the film is on in 2D and 3D then I'll usually just see it in 2D, although that's partly me being cheap and not wanting to pay
 
I agree with that. 3D won't rescue a bad film. Even if I liked the 2D version, I doubt I'd bother to watch again in 3D.

In the same way, I'm not going to buy a Blu-Ray version of anything I already have on DVD. But that doesn't mean HD is a passing fad.
 
I guess I am slightly confused by those who dislike 3D.

Do any of you live in a 2D world? :confused:

(apologies to those who may only have signt in one eye. Sorry, I don't mean to offend)
 
Hate it.
Saw Christmas carol In 3D and found the film too dull and miserable.
Wont see another 3D film again.
Luckily the cinema where I go to seems to show film's made in 3D in equal showings of 2D and 3D.
 
Back
Top