3D Love it or Hate it

This is the reason i've not bothered getting the latest Final Destination film, the fact it's probably pretty crap didn't matter but having those obvious made for 3D moments is a real off putter.

Saved me a few quid though I suppose.
 
Exactly. Just as colour TV was inevitable - so was HD - now 3D.

You can bet in the future - whatever the new technology is (total immersion holographic displays?, smellyvision?) - the movie studios will embrace it - and sure as eggs is eggs - people will criticise it as simply "the new fad".
 
Not a fan..the glasses makes the screen darker, which is highly disappointing with films like Up and Alice in wonderland, were colour and set is important to the film. And its an absolute pain having to look through 2 pairs of glasses
 
I've seen quite a few 3D movies over the last couple of years and some have looked great (Monsters and Aliens, Bolt). This may in part be due to the fact that 3D screenings are digital so everything is sharp and colourful - unlike a standard print screening which may be speckled with dust/dirt and not as clean.

However Avatar was the last one I saw and I just thought the 3D was distracting and made the film harder to watch so when I go and see Alice in Wonderland it will be the 2D version.

Now if it was a 2D digital screening then that would be perfect.
 
It will never be more than a gimmick, and I completely agree with Friedkin's comments.

If you think of your favorite movies, and classic movies from years back then you will find that it is primarily the story, the acting or the direction of the movie that keeps bringing you back to it.

Rarely do we go back to watching movies because, for example, the effects were great. And the prime reason for that is that effects will always date.

Does anyone still think the effects in the Matrix trilogy are revolutionary, and worth watching over and over again? Or the Jurassic Park movies?

The problem with 3D is that by definition it distracts the viewer, and dictates that we should be concious of the depth perspective, rather than the aforementioned base elements that are essential to the enjoyment of a movie.

And we have been here many times before with 3D...from the early 50's movies such as Bwana Devil, Creature from The Black Lagoon, It Came From Outer Space (the latter two have interestingly attained classic status in their 2D versions, most people would never have even seem them in 3D)... the 60's with The Bubble, Frankenstein's Bloody Terror... the 70's with it's plethora of 3D porn... the 80's with stuff like Jaws 3D, Halloween 3D, Amityville 3D and countless others... the 90's with the upsurge of IMAX 3D shorts and documentaries, and now here we are again, history repeating itself.
 
You can't really compare HD with 3D.

HD is about quality. It's ensuring a good quality picture. This is just a natural step, like 4:3 > Widescreen > HD.

3D is about another experience which requires you to wear some kind of adaptor to watch it (in the cinema a simple set of glasses, but at home it'll require a more advanced heaRABet, apparently).

3D will be good for certain things, but why would anyone need to watch a dance film or love story in 3D? There is no creative or narrative need for it. It's there to make money.

I like 3D when it fits, but it's being overused.

I don't think it'll take off on a personal level, well, at least until technology advances enough to not have to use glasses/a receiver and so it can be watched for long perioRAB without the user suffering.
 
I agree totally, I've seen a few movies in 3D at the cinema and the best have to Ice Age 3 because of the scope and the fact that you can see the depth in Manny's fur etc and Avatar which, is quite honestly, the pinnacle of 3D movies.

It's like looking through a window, there was no blur or dodgy angles just a true sensation of depth to the screen.
3D is without doubt the future of movies but for now I think it should be kept away from movies such as sex and the city 2 as there's just no need.

Incidentally, the missus spotted a 3D telly playing The Incredibles in Future Shop the other day and almost wet herself, the picture was superb and the daft black glasses weren't even needed!
 
i thought it was good in Avatar, but i fear that all these movies now desperate to ride on the coat-tails of that success will sour 3D very quickly.
 
Saw Toy Story 3 in Leicester Square with Dolby 3d glasses, not as good as Real 3d glasses - whichever I use I still get major eye 'headache'.
I would prefer 3D to just go away which I think will happen eventually and hope the cinemas would upgrade to better/sharper quality viewing.
 
I LOVE IT. 3D provides the perfect cinematic experiance because of the added depth it brings to movies to make it more immersive. Im willing to wager that not the only one who thinks that.

HELLOOOO theres this place called IMAX, a place especially made for 3d movies where people go and pay just for that.
Gimmick? Distraction? :rolls eyes: passing fad? laugh out loud. The thing is Avatar (among other recent movies) made 3d great again, seeing as millions of people would rather see the 3D version of movies than the 2D version(FACT). Clearly it cant be all that bad as you might assume right?Maybe, now just maybe that a vast majority of people actually want a superior cinematic experiance(bad thing?).

So don't you think its more logical to say that 3d is something you and only you have a problem with? Than just coming to the conclusion that the added immersive depth of scenes and sometimes the in-your-face stuff ruins a movie. Unless you think that those millions of people and movie critics worldwide must love these "distractions" and just don't know what makes a good movie. Not saying that you actually think that.

The point is that 3D IS NOT GOING AWAY.More and more movies are being made this way. Its not that big of a deal really. Lots of people must like this, if they'd rather see it in that form rather than the not-so-much cheaper half-ass 2d version.

REMEMBER. NO ONE'S FORCING YOU TO WATCH IT or pay that extra
 
I like it, but it's far from perfect, looks horrible on fast action scenes and is going to become overused.

Films are going to start being made simply to be in 3D.
 
I don't disagree with any of that, however it doesn't really answer my question because it can't be answered.
If the 3D version wasn't made how many people would go to see that? I was at the cinema today and every person I saw getting a ticket for Alice in Wonderland was getting the 3D glasses. Obviously it's drawn them to see that version of the film.
The interesting thing is I go to my local Cineworld for the afternoon screenings as the kiRAB are at school. Because of this the cinema is virtually empty. If they have 50 customers across all 12 screens they are doing well. On Friday afternoon it was busier than usual but being the opening day it was expected. They even opened the box office instead of selling the tickets at the refreshment kiosk.
This afternoon I would say there were at least 50-80 for Alice in 3D. Were all these extra people drawn because of the chance to see Burton's film or another 3D film? If it's more the latter than how many wouldn't have bothered if it were only in 2D?
I think it would really be interesting if in a few months actual figures were released comparing box office takings between the 2D version and the 3D version to see how big the gap is.

I think the only way a real comparrison could be done would be if a film were released for a month in 2D and then re-released for a month about 2-3 months later. Then you could do a proper comparrison and get a better idea of how many waited to see it in 3D or saw it and then thought the film was so good they wanted to see it again in 3D.
I think most people that saw a film and thought it was terrible or boring wouldn't bother going to see it again even if it is in 3D.
 
Back
Top