3D movies are awful

It is true 18 films do tend to make less money than 15 films as the teenagers who really want to see them can't!

I did like the 3D films last year, but this year they've been rubbish. 3D detracts from the storyline, so I will not be watching Harry Potter 7 in 3D. I found horror films like My Bloody Valentine were really good in 3D, but Toy Story was a really good film, but I forgot it was 3D halfway through!
 
Surely you've answered your own question. You willingly paid to see 3D films when you could have either watched the same films in 2D or watched better films instead. If people didn't pay to see films in 3D, there would be little point in showing them.
 
its not a new thing at all
big for a while in the 50s
big for a while in the 80s
big now. but no doubt it will vanish into obscurity like it always has
looks like a recurring rota every 30 years!!!
 
I think 3D is a quick way to increase ticket prices.

I have seen five 3D films in my life. The first, 'The Charge at Feather River' was a very low budget 1950s western whose sole claim to fame was the fact that they threw things at the camera at every opportunity. The second was a documentary about the Valley of the Kings, which I saw as part of the Tutankhamun exhibition at the O2 a couple of years ago. I suspect that it had been converted to 3D because the people seemed to be cardboard cut-outs spaced at different distances from the camera. The third was Disney's 'A Christmas Carol' last year. At least it was actually made in 3D and did create an impressive impression of depth, particularly in the title sequence as the camera swoops over a wintry Dickensian London. The fourth, of course, was 'Avatar', comfortably the best 3D movie ever made, but a long way short of being the best movie in any dimension. The final one was the fourth Shrek film and, having seen it, I don't understand why it was 3D at all. It certainly added nothing.

3D was first tried in the 1950s as an attempt to combat television. It failed - although it did produce one good film, 'House of Wax' (made by a one-eyed director who, ironically, could not see in 3D). They tried again in the 1980s, producing no good films at all, and it bombed again. Now they are trying to force feed it to us. 'Avatar' was good, although not great; ditto 'A Christmas Carol'. I suspect that it will wither and die again in time as people see it for the gimmick that it is and tire of the glasses and the dull on-screen image.

It is perhaps worth noting that another technical gizmo that they tried at the same time is still very much with us and features in the majority of films released now. In the early days, they called it CinemaScope. Now it's called Super-35 when they give it a name at all, and the technology is different - but from the audience's point of view, it's the same thing. It's impressive to look at, doesn't need silly glasses, doesn't dull the image and doesn't cost extra to see. Frankly, I know which I prefer.
 
I think you're confusing box office success with quality.

Obviously the lower the certificate, the more people are able to watch the movie, hence the more the film will make at the box office.

But that does not mean it is a good movie...some real stinkers have made a lot of money at the box office because they have been marketed well, and yet some classic movies have made no money at the box office, and yet have gone on to be regarded as classics over the course of time.
 
Tv more than films have a real problem with the 3D revolution. Fine make all your shows in 3D if you wish, but people aren't going to ditch all the DVRAB and Blu Rays they've bought. People are still going to want to watch 2D shows they love such as Fools and Horses, Fawlty Towers, 60's Star Trek etc.
To show them you are going to end up with half your output 3D and half 2D. It's going to be a hard sell trying to get people to pay for 3D and ugrade when a good perecntage of what you show isn't in 3D.
This is the biggest transtion on TV since B&W to colour. Why rush out to buy colour TV when initially the majority of your output is still black and white?
In the 70's TV shows were being made in colour but we didn't get one until about 1981 or 1982. mum and dad were happy watching in B&W, the TV wasn't broken why change it?
If 100% of your DVRAB are in 2D and 50% of the TV's output is 2D why am I going to pay out hundreRAB or thousanRAB and ditch a perfectly working TV? I'll just watch the stuff in 2D.
 
I will stick to my crisp detailed Blu-Rays thankyou very much. I am happy enough with the extra depth you get in them (due to edges of objects being more defined) without wishing things were coming out of the screen,
 
Sorry to resurrected this thread but I have been to see a couple of the 3D releases that are out there at the moment and TBH I was disappointed with the effect.

The 1st 3D movie I remember seeing was a low budget horror flick called "Parasite" and what impressed me most was how certain objects really did appear to come out of the screen at you.

This effect seems lacking in the new movies and I got to wondering why.

The only conclusion I can think of is because back in the day Cinema Screens were much larger and really filled up your area of view, unlike today where it feels like you are just watching a large TV screen.

Has anybody been to see a 3D movie on an IMAX screen and did it give you more depth?
 
The 3d backlash is starting. The latest 'Cats and Dogs' movie that was in 3D flopped badly as did the 'last Airbender' and the 3d version of 'Step-up to the streets' made significantly less money than the previous 2D versions. And at comic con in San Diego whenever a film was announced as being in 3d it got a huge round of boos from the crowd,

Plus the longer this 3D thing goes on the more resistant people will get to paying
 
The really bad 3D in Piranha will have done massive damage to 3D movie takeup. Trouble is it's a delayed response, it's later movies that suffer, not Piranha itself.
 
I don't get 3D - I don't know if it's my eyes but I can't see the difference. Is 3D at the cinema any different to the 3D released on DVD because in the DVRAB they give you the red/cyan glasses and at the cinema you get black shades. Does this make a difference to the 3D effect? I watched the DVD release of My Bloody Valentine and Street Dance in 3D and all it did was hurt my eyes by making the picture fuzzier. :confused:
 
3D is a huge hobbyhorse of mine so please forgive me if you've heard some of this before.

Watching a film to me is very much like reading a book. You lose yourself in the story and when you're reminded that you're experiencing something you pulled out of that experience. The technique isn't even used in what might be a traditional sense by deepening (if that's a word) the field in the way a stage is set. Instead, an elonglated smurf sticks a spear in your face and you think "Oh yeah! This film's in 3D!".

I'm not sure domestic take up will be as readily taken up as HD has been either. It's too soon for the outlay. The majority of people will think their nice new 1080p sets are going to last the better part of a decade without the need for upgrade.

I do think that it does have it's vurtues. Gaming for instance is an interactive experience and I think it could be used to stunning effect if it survives to the next generation of machines. Unfortunately I believe that when it does fall on it's backside the concept of 3D will be treated with contempt for another 20 to 30 years.

It's not even like the technology at the cinema has been perfected either and this is where we're lead to believe the magic will start. As a lot of people have already pointed out the dimming is considerable and I for one can always see bleedover. I've now boycotted 3D which is a shame as The Hole was only shown in "cash cow" form. I do suppose we've all got nice new digital projectors out of it though. :)
 
all ill say is horses for courses.

i saw my 1st and only 3D movie several days ago,

"dispicable me"

and loved it,. ;) we got previews for real films and cartoons, and have to say I thought all the cartoon previews looked amazin,

but the real life films just seemed odd

this week i also just set up 3D gaming on my PC. and i think thats where the money is, its awesome!!

of course even for those not interested in the 3D hobby horse i wouldnt moan too much, its new technology and as such the 3D tellys are driving down the price of the standard HD ones like know ones business:D

but am looking forward to TRON LEGACY in 3D on december
 
Back
Top