3D in Cinema's??

[big F]

I think it has it's place avatar was obviously the bench mark that non of them can match (so far). Some of the films that I have seen in 3D are cartoons and I think that this medium leans better towards the 3D media, other films are IMO just as watch-able in 2D on a big screen. I am still undecided if I need to see Transformers 3 in 3D or not come release day.

Either way it will never really fully catch on until you can see it in 3D without glasses. I vision a kinda giant Nintendo 3DS screen with less Mario and cutesy creatures.

[EXO]

I accidentally got tix for the 3D version of Kung Fu Panda 2 and it was pretty good 3D. I still think it's distracting though. I kept looking around to see what was popping out and what made it pop out. I don't usually see the 3D in movies but for some reason that one really worked for me as far as the gimmick went. Story-wise I can do with out.

I think 3D should be made specially for first person gaming where you're supposed to be in the middle of the action.

[eugimon]

haha, you guys sound like a bunch of bitter, toothless old men, sitting on your front porch complaining about kids and their rock and roll.

[EXO]

You call that rock and roll?

[big F]

I genuinely loved the first film I saw in Real 3D (Avatar) I think it made the film, since then I have seen several Real 3D films some like Gulliver's Travels didn't over do the 3D it was only there to reinforce parts of the film, where as in Despicable Me, it made it, especially the end credits where the Minions are trying to build a bridge out into the audience, something that looks great in 3D but on normal DVD just wouldn't work one bit.

In Avatar while the 3D was excellent, it still looks stunning in 2D, not seen any of the other 3D films I saw in 2D so I cant make an educated comparison.

First person gaming I agree is I think where it will really make a difference though, Black Ops 3D or Halo 3D mmmmm!!

[Renato]

I really didn't notice the 3D in Avatar. I felt totally ripped off because people said it was really amazing, but I still don't get what the big deal is. It looked just like a random computer game to me. I still think Jurassic Park beats most of these recent computer movies in terms of convincing effects.

EDIT -- I just remembered the last 3D thing I ever enjoyed: Captain EO.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Renato

[DarrinG]

Saw Thor and KF Panda 2 both in 3D - much better in KFP2. Agree that toons might lend themselves better.

But I do remember the Ice Troll scene at the beginning of Thor where the hammer struck the ground causing the entire rocky landscape to ripple and roll. That was pretty amazing in 3D.

At this point if I had to choose I would take the 3D in most flics...

[Agent ONE]

Eh, 3D is an annoying distraction, and a useless upcharge.

[Dynaman]

Eh, 3D is an annoying distraction, and a useless upcharge.

Ditto, the upcharge here is $4 a ticket, when the base ticket is $6 (matinee) then I have NO desire to pay the extra except in rare cases. For my family of four it is $24 for 2d or $40 for 3d. To make it worse, some films have looked worse in 3d then they did in 2d. (Tron and Avatar being exceptions)

[big F]

Ditto, the upcharge here is $4 a ticket, when the base ticket is $6 (matinee) then I have NO desire to pay the extra except in rare cases. For my family of four it is $24 for 2d or $40 for 3d. To make it worse, some films have looked worse in 3d then they did in 2d. (Tron and Avatar being exceptions)

The ticket price is the real issue for most, near me we have 3 multiplex's within 20 mins or so drive, we also have a small Victorian/Edwardian theatre that was converted into a Cinema around the time of silent movies, it has all that vintage charm and is a 5 min walk from my house, recently they spent loads of money on it to get it 3D capable and upgrading the already good sound system.

The issue is most everyone still goes on about how it's not very good etc. Most people are basing their opinions on what it was like 20 years ago when Mom and Pop took them to see the Saturday morning pictures locally they call it the flea pit, due to 30 odd years ago it had a little issue for one summer with small six legged vampires, Rentokill fixed them but it's that mentality that keeps people away so it relies on hand outs and the local business owner who owns the building to keep it from closing.

The difference is they charge around £4 at most for a ticket mostly less, £6 ish if 3D, the popcorn and sweets/candy are supermarket prices, and how many cinemas do you know who make you a mug of coffee to take in if you ask ? Picture quality is the same as the multiplex due to it being the same projector and screen. There is more leg room due to it being an old school theatre, and in those days ladies had dresses and needed room to get down the aisles etc. No parking fees for me as the car stays at home.

Multiplex charges a minimum of £7, £12 if 3D and charges you £3 for M&M's that you can buy in the local store for £1.25 and you have to pay to park.

Small Victorian/Edwardian 1 Multiplexes 0

Still occasionally have to bend over and take it from the multiplex man due to not being able to see a show locally but for the most part we get to see everything worth the bother.

That's what will kill off 3D not the fact that it is not up to par etc,

Edited June 21, 2011 by big F

[Oihan]

I remember seeing Avatar in 3D and I was not impressed with the "3D." Maybe it's just my eyes...but I couldn't really see the 3D parallax effect (if I'm phrasing that correctly). I recall seeing another movie in "3D" (the name escapes me at the moment) and still didn't get that sense of depth. With the exception of video games, when I think of 3D I think of images popping out at me...like a hologram would. The only time I really got a sense of depth was when I was looking a "3D" demo in a Best Buy store; however the image was far from being crisp in my eyes - I wasn't impressed. I finally saw the Nintendo 3DS in action a few weeks back and the sense of depth still really wasn't there for me. It all looks 2D to me. Maybe I need to give a longer viewing..and maybe get rid of the notion of holographic images or what have ya?

[areaseven]

I thought Avatar looked great on IMAX. The biggest disappointment I had with 3D was Tron: Legacy, as IMAX did nothing to really make the experience different from 2D.

[Keith]

I remember seeing Avatar in 3D and I was not impressed with the "3D." Maybe it's just my eyes...but I couldn't really see the 3D parallax effect (if I'm phrasing that correctly). I recall seeing another movie in "3D" (the name escapes me at the moment) and still didn't get that sense of depth. With the exception of video games, when I think of 3D I think of images popping out at me...like a hologram would. The only time I really got a sense of depth was when I was looking a "3D" demo in a Best Buy store; however the image was far from being crisp in my eyes - I wasn't impressed. I finally saw the Nintendo 3DS in action a few weeks back and the sense of depth still really wasn't there for me. It all looks 2D to me. Maybe I need to give a longer viewing..and maybe get rid of the notion of holographic images or what have ya?

"It's a scooner."

[Gubaba]

"It's a scooner."

Oihan eventually saw the sailboat.

[taksraven]

In ten years time we are all going to be sitting around going:

"Hey, you remember that 3D boob last decade, didn't that fizzle out?"

[Hikuro]

I'm digging 3D in theaters despite the large amount of money it takes to go, but I'm having a hard time in ever wanting to buy a 3D television, bluray enabled 3D and then 3D glasses!

[big F]

Can't see my self shelling out the coins to get a 3D tv just yet. I have the feeling that the format of 3D will change, I hope that they'll make it so you don't need glasses to use it. I can imagine having a draw full of glasses just in case the family come for dinner.

[Renato]

The ticket price is the real issue for most, near me we have 3 multiplex's within 20 mins or so drive, we also have a small Victorian/Edwardian theatre that was converted into a Cinema around the time of silent movies, it has all that vintage charm and is a 5 min walk from my house, recently they spent loads of money on it to get it 3D capable and upgrading the already good sound system.

The issue is most everyone still goes on about how it's not very good etc. Most people are basing their opinions on what it was like 20 years ago when Mom and Pop took them to see the Saturday morning pictures locally they call it the flea pit, due to 30 odd years ago it had a little issue for one summer with small six legged vampires, Rentokill fixed them but it's that mentality that keeps people away so it relies on hand outs and the local business owner who owns the building to keep it from closing.

The difference is they charge around £4 at most for a ticket mostly less, £6 ish if 3D, the popcorn and sweets/candy are supermarket prices, and how many cinemas do you know who make you a mug of coffee to take in if you ask ? Picture quality is the same as the multiplex due to it being the same projector and screen. There is more leg room due to it being an old school theatre, and in those days ladies had dresses and needed room to get down the aisles etc. No parking fees for me as the car stays at home.

Multiplex charges a minimum of £7, £12 if 3D and charges you £3 for M&M's that you can buy in the local store for £1.25 and you have to pay to park.

Small Victorian/Edwardian 1 Multiplexes 0

Still occasionally have to bend over and take it from the multiplex man due to not being able to see a show locally but for the most part we get to see everything worth the bother.

That's what will kill off 3D not the fact that it is not up to par etc,

Please tell me, where exactly is this magical place where you pay less for more?! (Don't say Inverness or something random like that!)

Edit -- I guess somewhere in Sussex?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Renato

[Vic Mancini]

3D is not a fad. It kind of sucks right now, but it's just a stepping stone towards bigger things like holograms, and retinal projectors, and eventually direct brain interface fully immersive virtual reality where you don't even need one eye, let alone two, to enjoy three dimensions...not to mention taste, touch, and smell. We're all going to be uploading ourselves on the internet some day where computers that are a billion times more powerful than the human brain will produce virtual reality that is indistinguishable from real life. 3D movies, TVs, games, and cell phones are just the tip of the iceberg.

You might as well be against electricity, and the internet, and any kind of human progress if you are against 3D technologies. Just join a hutterite colony and get it over with!

[sketchley]

Saying someone is against 3D is akin to against electricity just makes you look dumb.

Smell-o-vision, may be OK, but 3D in the same boat as electricity??? Can you live without 3D movies? Definitely. Live without electricity? Possible, but extremely difficult if you're used to living with it.

Anyhow, I agree that 3D is dying. Simply because it's already happened 3 or more times before. What's killing it this time are: high ticket prices and low quality (not just visuals, but writing, acting and direction. Case in point: is Avatar known for anything other than having done 3D really well and making a lot of money? Don't hear much about the story, characters, directing and so on...).

Edited June 24, 2011 by sketchley

[Vic Mancini]

Saying someone is against 3D is akin to against electricity just makes you look dumb.

Smell-o-vision, may be OK, but 3D in the same boat as electricity??? Can you live without 3D movies? Definitely. Live without electricity? Possible, but extremely difficult if you're used to living with it.

There was a time when people got by on kerosine lamps. They raised animals on their own property and slaughtered them to put food on their own table. They got by without electricity just fine and probably thought the world could have gone on another thousand years without electrical companies and their high prices.

3D is just one of many technologies that are still in their infancy that are going to become part of every day life. It's going to be integrated everywhere and it's going to be good. It's going to be so good that going back to a 2D format will feel as limiting as walking around in the world with one eye closed. Can you live without one of your eyes?...definitely. But it's extremely difficult if you're used to living with two.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Vic Mancini

[sketchley]

Pfft

3D's been around since the Big Bang. Reality rocks. Moving on.

[azrael]

Anyhow, I agree that 3D is dying. Simply because it's already happened 3 or more times before. What's killing it this time are: high ticket prices and low quality (not just visuals, but writing, acting and direction. Case in point: is Avatar known for anything other than having done 3D really well and making a lot of money? Don't hear much about the story, characters, directing and so on...).

I don't think 3D is dying, it's being mishandled. If you put it on anything and everything, even on stuff that should not have it, then yeah, people are going to get turned off by it. Avatar is one of those films where the director wanted the audience to be immersed in the world he created. The visuals reflect that. But 3D on a film like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Cars 2? I'm sorry, but no. And even 3D TVs....I don't need to see the evening news in 3D or even some sports game.

[eugimon]

I think this whole "cgi" nonsense is going to come to an end. I mean, movies with a lot of CGI tend to suck, therefore, CGI causes movies to suck.

Back in my day, if you wanted a dinosaur, then you made a little scale set, got some playdough and you made your own dinosaur or you got a guy in a suit. And you know what, those movies are classics! And what do kids have now? Jurassic park 4? See, proof positive that stop motion and rubber suits are superior to CGI!

[azrael]

Back in my day, if you wanted a dinosaur, then you made a little scale set, got some playdough and you made your own dinosaur or you got a guy in a suit. And you know what, those movies are classics! And what do kids have now? Jurassic park 4? See, proof positive that stop motion and rubber suits are superior to CGI!

Gojira.

I'll leave it at that.

[big F]

I remember someone telling me back in 1995 that I was a show off and nobody really needed a mobile phone, when you had call boxes and a phone at home and work. Now fast forward 17 years and that same person still won't get one because he says the same, he also doesn't have the internet as that was a passing fad too. He's still a great guy though, just very old school.

[Gui]

The opinion of Mamoru Oshii:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2011-06-24/mamoru-oshii-criticizes-current-state-of-3d-films

[big F]

The opinion of Mamoru Oshii:

http://www.animenews...ate-of-3d-films

I agree, never understood the smart phone angle even though I worked on the format and convergence of media to it.

[azrael]

The opinion of Mamoru Oshii:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2011-06-24/mamoru-oshii-criticizes-current-state-of-3d-films

The man has a point. 3D introduces new aspects of cinema photography. And we're applying 2D techniques to 3D and it's not really working. Like I said, 3D isn't dying, it's being mishandled. That's one reason why people are being turned off by it.

[Penguin]

I don't think 3D is dying, it's being mishandled. If you put it on anything and everything, even on stuff that should not have it, then yeah, people are going to get turned off by it. Avatar is one of those films where the director wanted the audience to be immersed in the world he created. The visuals reflect that. But 3D on a film like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Cars 2? I'm sorry, but no. And even 3D TVs....I don't need to see the evening news in 3D or even some sports game.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Most of the anti-3-D opinions I've encountered (including my own) aren't "3D is inherently evil and must be crushed" , they're more like "3D sucks and isn't worth the extra $$". It certainly isn't a case of "I reject and fear new things and change".

It's amusing in itself to read someone referring to 3D as new. Certainly, a new twist on it thanks to the benefits of CGI, but it's always reared its head in response to the latest cry of "motion pictures are dying!!!". In the 50s and 60s, "television will put an end to motion pictures!!!" and we got 3D and William Castle's various stunts. In the early 80s, there was a brief resurgence (anyone else remember every sequel with a "3" had to be "3D"? ) because "VHS will put an end to motion pictures!!!". Now, "blu-ray and home theatres will put an end to motion pictures!!!" and lo and behold, we have 3D again, and D-BOX too for that matter. Eventually, they'll develop a technology that makes 3D a truly impressive experience, and it will become a standard and not a gimmick. Right now, it's still flawed though definitely a cut above the red/green cardboard lenses .

Of course, it all goes back to the old maxim that newer doesn't mean better, but you don't get progress without missteps. That doesn't mean you stop trying, but you don't have to love it if it don't work yet. For example, I still think really well-done miniature photography looks more "real" than CGI, but it's also a lot more painstaking and time intensive. I certainly wouldn't have abandoned CGI just because "The Last Starfighter" didn't look as good as "Return of the Jedi". If we'd had to stick with miniatures, I don't think we'd have gotten the cool visuals from series such as "Firefly" or the new "Battlestar Galactica".

[Ghost Train]

Screw 3D, I'm waiting for 5-D+ with Infrared imaging so I can watch yet another reboot/re-imagining/or videogame-to-movie like the Predator would.

[big F]

Screw 3D, I'm waiting for 5-D+ with Infrared imaging so I can watch yet another reboot/re-imagining/or videogame-to-movie like the Predator would.

That would be one where you have to wear a special suit that lets you feel the film too, all that hot jungle and the mud etc add it to smell o vision too while your at it.

Oh you know what stuff that just give me a GITS style jack and just boot up the film

[Ghost Train]

I can find no other thread of relevance to post this in:

[Agent ONE]

Wow, that makes Black Dynamite look like Avatar.

[Einherjar]

I wear glasses already, I don't want to wear another one on top of it or some other work around just to watch a movie in 3D. Besides, is IMAX, stadium seating, and a huge screen enough not enough to immerse yourself in the movie experience? Plus this: