3D movies are awful

À

ಠдà²

New member
I finally decided to go and watch one. Not only is it more expensive but take the glasses off and it's blurry, some people get headaches, objects actually look shaded rather than 3D. There's maybe like a slight dimension added to lettering or the odd object that's it. It's also dull and annoying watching in Glasses.

No way is this crap the future. I will stick to my Blu Ray movies.

Stick to tried and tested 2D cinema we have had for the last 70 or 80 years. If Sky want us to all go 3D forget it because there's no way on this earth is the picture better it's actually worse. :rolleyes:
 
It's weird that I'm constantly seeing these threaRAB and the vast majority of the time I'm seeing negative opinions about 3D, nobody I know likes 3D yet we keep getting told it's the future.
 
I'm no fan of 3D films either. When I went and saw Avatar in 3D I remember the picture looking a bit washed out and blurred and by the end of the movie I was starting to get a headache.

A few months later when I went to see Toy Story 3 in 2D the picture looked fantastic plus no awful headache. As a result I enjoyed the movie much better. Yeah, 3D really is the future. Not.
 
It wasn't good, at all. The same with Clash Of The Titans, they were shot in 2D and converted to 3D in post-production... hence they look bad.

Done well, it can look good. Although, I still much prefer a great 2D image to a well done 3D image as they stand currently.
 
I'm just curious as to what cinemas you are all going to that charge extra money for 3D screenings?:confused:

Here in Belfast none of them do! I can get into the cinema for
 
Put it this way, other than the kind of showboating stuff they had at the 3D theatre in Granada studios, I've never seen a real movie that I enjoyed more for it being in 3D.
 
In my opinion, the studios were waiting with baited breath to see just how well James Cameron's "Avatar" did in 3D. To be fair to the film, the 3D visuals of Avatar were very, very good. It had been shot in 3D, with care and a desire to have the 3D concept presented properly. Now a box office smash, it didn't take long for the studios to ride the coat-tails with 3D offerings of their own, hoping to cash in on the fad. With any copied gimmick or idea though, the quality ranges from good, to downright awful.

That said, I personally prefer the Blu-Ray HD version of Avatar in 2D
 
I wonder whether the real damage is going to be to the size of regular audiences at multiplexes. People who aren't interested in 3D films are going to go to the cinema less frequently if there are fewer films for them to choose from. This is going to affect older audiences who don't want to see Piranha, Avatar or Step Up anyway and who will probably go to see Toy Story in 2D because they've heard it's a brilliant film but don't want to see it in 3D.

So multiplexes will start to lose a whole demographic from their regular audiences. As I said before, I'd rather sit in a comfortable seat and have top-notch sound and vision, so I always prefer to go to the Vue; but I'm finding it increasingly hard to find films that I want to see amongst all the 3D nonsense. (Also the price argument is valid: it costs
 
Just because the format exists does not mean it will be a success. Lots of technology has had it's moment which never lasted long:

*Mini Discs.
*HD DVD.
*Beta max.
*Sega Dreamcast.
*Pagers.
*The 3D with red and green glasses.

Holographic TV is also early days. Might not take off either. Let's face it in the 3D market I know there's talk of Eurosport 3D and Discovery 3D. Neither have took a risk in joining Sky's HD 3D ready platform yet. Views have been very mixed but Sky also have VOD up there sleeve next. If the full 3D channel launching in October fails to take off I can't see there being more 3D channels. The next generation of HD is actually Super HD which is better than 3D.

Sky's 3D service offers a lesser resolution in 3D HD than normal HD. I hope it fails due to the greed of Sky pushing this technology. The only reason manufacturers are pushing new TV's as they want to squeeze peoples pockets dry in the post recession times. Executives think more people stay at home so let's sell another gimmick.

For most HD is a pleasant experience whether you notice the detail or not. However formats like 3D is unpleasant for many due to headaches, awkwardness of wearing glasses and the rediculous cost of a new TV.

With the new 3D they say the technology is better this time? How explain it? Lower revolution than 3D, and they still can't get rid of the notion of wearing glasses. I don't understand it fuilly but in cinema terms you're always going to need glasses unless they can some how output it in 3D without all the motion blur.

What I really dislike about 3D technology speaking as somebody who is a massive gadget fan is that it's not real technology just effects. The screen is not better, the detail is lacking like HD. It's just not that revolutionary here it is 3D big wow next? I had a worse experience in watching it and the massive issue for the film industry and Sky is no matter how well marked it is there will still be enough people to pay to watch it but they are unlikely to convert everybody to 3D.

HD on the other hand could replace SD. Having all 3D channels would be the end of TV as so many people don't like it and never will.

For the sheer hate of the technology by so many people I hope that is the reason why 3D is never the most popular medium and remains a "optional choice".
 
I hear it alot about Piranha 3D what spoiled it?

*The fact it was not in 2D?
*The fact it was produced to just have effects rather than what happens in the film?
*The fact it was a poor attempt at Jaws?
*The fact the 3D was average quality?
 
IMO part of the reason that so many people don't like the 3D films is because they exist.
usually what happens is something will be mentioned and you say that sounRAB fantastic. The more it's spoken about the better it sounRAB. Your anticipation builRAB up and then one day it arrives. you go in and you think is that it? It's nowhere near as good as it sounded or I expected.

At some point all the hype about holographic films and TV will start. It will sound amazing blah blah blah. Will it really be that good? It's only as good as where you are sitting. Lets say it's an holograph of Bruce Willis. All the seats at what would be considered the front are taken so I take another one. For the whole thing I'm going to be looking at the side of his head or the back of his head. Fantastic!

Below is a link for Holographic TV. I'll admit it's impressive, but take note of the movement. Either the hologram keeps rotating to show that you can see all around or the camera keeps moving. When people watch TV or films they tend to stay in the same place. So pause the clip and that is what in reality you would be looking at the whole time. I would suggest pausing it at about 0:26

http://www.squidoo.com/holographictv

There are people that love 3D and that's fair enough, but I think the majority don't like it because they don't feel impressed by it and don't feel it adRAB anything of value to the film and if the 3D version didn't exist they wouldn't care less.
 
I really don't understand the renascent 3-D fad. How can something you have to do 'special things' to see be commercially viable in the long run? Especially given today's drastically diminished attention spans, people just won't be bothered with the prep.
 
I prefer films without the 3-D things and i hate it when films are made for 3-D because then it just loooks stupid when watching it in 2-D.

Spy KiRAB 3D : Game Over was the first 3-D film I saw and the only one that was atcully worth performing in 3-D.
 
Back
Top