GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

3D or not 3D? That is the question.

POSTED BY: LWAVES
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1544
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:45 AM

LWAVES


With the increase of films being released in 3D (you know the ones with the tinted glasses) I was wondering what you all thought of it. Has it improved since it's debut all those years ago or is it just a gimmick?
I know Monsters Vs Aliens was released like this, and I hear that Toy Story 1+2 are to be re-released later this year/early next year. And I'm sure there are others.
Plus to keep the post related - would you buy Serenity if that was released in 3D?

Part of the reason I ask is that I have a slight problem with my eyes in that I can't focus both at the same time. Now for pretty much everything this isn't a problem but the optician did tell me years ago that I'd never be able to see those stereoscopic images (the ones made up of static that hide a hidden image). So I always assumed that would apply to 3D movies. Not wanting to waste my money at the cinema I waited until Coraline came out and got the Blu-ray which features a 3D version.
And whilst I did get a 3d effect the colours were completely washed out and I still got the red/green ghosting around the edge of everything.
Do you see that? Are the colours washed out for everyone or do you see them as normal?



"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:52 AM

MANGOLO


3D gives me a headache after about 15 minutes. Maybe because of my stigmatism.

Personally, I think it is a new glass ceiling Hollywood is installing to try to keep independent productions from taking over. Look at District 9- budget $30 million. The price of doing a 3D film adds anywhere from $15-25 million to a budget. If 3D becomes the standard that would keep most indies from competing with Hollywood's latest fluff. Just my two cents.



http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:56 AM

WHOZIT


"The Final Destination" is also in 3-D, it may be a good idea for a flick like that to be in 3-D. But I'm not really into 3-D.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:33 PM

DEWCREW919


Well, I think it's pretty cool. But after the movie's over, it's not like you remember scenes in 3D. I just remember that it looked cool.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:59 PM

STORYMARK


Theatrical 3D doesn't use colored lenses anymore. Hasn't since Spy Kids 3.

I like the polarized 3D. Coraline was really impressive, and I've enjoyed some of the others quite a bit.

Part of the push is because ticket sales have been tapering off for years, which really accellerated with the proliferation of plasma and lcd sets. 3D is their new tool to get folks to the theatre - just like when they introduced the widescreen aspect ratio when TV became so popular.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:35 PM

BIGRICHARD


Yeah, it definitely depends which 3D you're talking about.

I love the cinema 3D, with the polarized lenses and such.

I hate the home 3D, with coloured lenses that both don't work, and make everything horrible shades of whatever colours the glasses use.

It really does seem to be an attempt to get people back into the cinema, since you can't get the same experience at home, and it always depends on the film as to whether I see it in 3D or not.

Monsters v Aliens? Wasn't so bothered.
Coraline? Haven't seen it yet (it's still out at the cinemas here in Aust), but I want to see it in 3D, since I hear it's amazing and they put a lot of work into 3D.
My Bloody Valentine? Nice gimmick, bit of fun.
Avatar? Bet your bum I'll be seeing it in 3D.

I'm fairly sure it's nothing to do with independent cinema, they're not THAT worried about it, I think it's just an addition to cinema that they want to continue improving on so that more people will go to the cinema for the experience, rather than waiting for the DVD or downloading it. Hopefully they do keep improving it, as it does make some films look even more amazing.

Speaking of which, we haven't got Up out here yet, but it's coming out soon. Does anyone suggest the 3D or 2D version? I'm not so sure. It's Pixar though, so I know I'll love it either way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 6:23 AM

STORYMARK


Totally agree it has nothing to do with indie cinema. Sure, there are the rare indie hits like District 9 - but the lion's share of the business is still going to the studios - by a very large margin. Plus, those rare hit indies are still, in most cases, distributed by one of the major studios, so they still get their piece of the pie.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:49 AM

LWAVES


Yeah I've gotta say that I don't think the big studios are worried about indie films taking too big a chunk of their profits. There will always be and always have been the occasional indie big hitter or sleeper hit.

As for the 3D I never realised that it was different at the cinema to at home. I had just assumed that they had got the coloured lens version to work better. Might have to look into this polarized version and see how my eyesight handles that.



"I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it it might cheer me up to watch."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I, too, agree it probably has nothing to do with the profit margin; and I also agree it's probably a new gimmick to get people to go to the movies. Never seen it myself, didn't seem worth the effort and I rarely go to the movies, just wait for things to come out on DVD. But I don't think I'd want to bother with 3d glasses, to me it IS just a gimmick.

Wondered tho'; do movies that come out on DVD look any different if you don't use the glasses? I would consider that a real loss, if they did.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:40 AM

STORYMARK


Sure, they're 2 dimensional, not 3.

Otherwise, no, no particular difference.

And sure it's a gimmick, but also a technical advancement that brings the medium closer to the way we see life normally (well, those of us with 2 eyes), just like sound, color and wider aspect ratios (which better simulate the eye's natural field of view).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:19 AM

STORYMARK


Oh, and for what it's worth, the most impressive 3D I've seen so far was in U2 3D.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:26 AM

SAB39


I'm a fan of the cinema 3D. I've seen Up, Ice Age 3 and Harry Potter (IMAX 3D) in that format and liked the 3Dness of all of them. Harry Potter was the least impressive because only a few scenes at the beginning of the movie were 3D and the technology seems less impressive (it was definitely possible to see some slight ghosting of what the other eye was supposed to see). I felt cheated by that one but it was still worth it - just wish they'd been clearer upfront that 'an IMAX 3D experience' means '10 minutes of 3D then the rest normal'...

Anyway, if something's available in 3D in theaters I'll definitely see it that way.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:35 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by sab39:
I felt cheated by that one but it was still worth it - just wish they'd been clearer upfront that 'an IMAX 3D experience' means '10 minutes of 3D then the rest normal'...



The ads I saw said "see the opening attack (or words to that effect) in 3D!"

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:38 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


For me it's a complete gimmick. It's interesting, and I don't dismiss it out of hand, but I like my real life 3D and my cinema 2D. Partly because my background is still photography and I'm just used to thinking that way. I think the bottom line should be: can you tell the story better in 3D?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:38 AM

KC5F


As a fellow esotropic strabismic, I also am unable to see 3D in movies, stereoscopes, etc. So I personally wouldn't buy a 3D movie. But I'm told the newer polarized lens theater 3D effect is much better than the older lenses with different colors. When I tried it, I still didn't see 3D, but there was no color ghosting.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:11 AM

PCCH7


I really don´t care about 3D.. I guess, maybe movies like Avatar could possibly look better in 3D but in general, I just think it´s a gimmick.. It´s like they´re putting scenes in just to make use of the 3D, even when the scenes are not necessary

"Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor.."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:43 PM

BIGRICHARD


Avatar, from what I saw, didn't have any of those gimmicky 'pointing a sword right at you' scenes, so the 3D was just chosen because Cameron thinks it's a great technology and gives an interesting look to the film. Which it does, it's used primarily to make the film 'deeper' and make things like the 3D computer screens LOOK 3D. With that said, everyone keeps saying "You need to see Avatar in Imax 3D to like it!" Not true. Cameron meant for you to see it in Imax 3D, so that's the "full experience" if you will. Normal cinema 3D will be just as good probably, without the massive screen. And again, normal cinema 2D version will still be great, you won't really 'miss' anything by skipping the 3D.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 26, 2009 12:51 PM

BORIS


3D makes me twitch more and gives me a headache and makes me hyper.....however if anything Firefly/Serenity related came out on 3D I would watch it. pain is relative

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL