If 3-d is the best theaters can do to try and convince me to pay $16 for a ticket, they cannot go bankrupt soon enough.

/fark 3-d
//and fark 10 minutes of pre-movie advertisements

xanadian: It also looks like his blue penis is sticking out at me.

I'm afraid.

/kind of



Even if it means me taking a chubby, I will suck it up!

I don't see how it can be an improvement if it leaves about 20% of the audience feeling nauseated or dizzy.

Call me when there aren't glasses required, and "3D" isn't just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.

grinding_journalist: I don't see how it can be an improvement if it leaves about 20% of the audience feeling nauseated or dizzy.

Call me when there aren't glasses required, and "3D" isn't just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.

So basicly holograms

Yes and nothing.

grinding_journalist: Call me when there aren't glasses required, and "3D" isn't just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.

As opposed to how your brain processes depth normally?

I work in the film industry so I'm getting a kick.... yadda yadda.

3D sucks. It's expensive, it's slow, the camera rigs weigh more than twice as much, it makes post production less efficient, there are limitation on set as to what you can legitimately shoot in 3D (can't get too close to the subject, for example), and the whole time the creatives have to fight against the studio execs to prevent 40 farking gratuitous and cheesy "shiat flying at the audience" effects finding their way into the film. I haven't worked with a director yet that enjoys shooting 3D.

That being said, many theatres have invested in the technology to project it and it adds a couple bucks to the price of every ticket, and it's very well suited for animation. So it's kinda here to stay.

3D is getting better on my 3DS, where it's subtle.
Not so much at the movies =P

3D movies are only worth seeing if they're actually filmed in 3D, and even then, they're not worth seeing.

It's either gimmicky in-your-face 3D (look out for that ball!) or it's background depth enhancement that is so subtle, you barely notice it. In which case, if you're not really going to notice it, why bother?

/If Avatar was 3D done "right," it was underwhelming.
//that said, I'll probably see The Hobbit in its 48 fps 3D.

spiral8: 3D is getting better on my 3DS, where it's subtle.
Not so much at the movies =P

Yup... I think Nintendo made the more proper 3D gaming experience where as Sony hasnt... I swear, if I ever have to play a game in 3D on my TV wearing glasses. They will ge goggles cause damn I am a very active gamer. Which includes jumping for joy when I finally beat a damn boss that has taken me 10 hours to beat... See Heavenly Sword's final boss or any boss in Demon's Soul or Dark Soul.

el_mocoso: Even if it means me taking a chubby, I will suck it up!

Dr. Manhattan, you blowhard!

Want 3D, go see a play.

xanadian: It also looks like his blue penis is sticking out at me.

I'm afraid.

/kind of

It's alright. Now, you really should be scared if he sneaks in The Goat.

Tax Boy: 3D movies are only worth seeing if they're actually filmed in 3D, and even then, they're not worth seeing.

It's either gimmicky in-your-face 3D (look out for that ball!) or it's background depth enhancement that is so subtle, you barely notice it. In which case, if you're not really going to notice it, why bother?

/If Avatar was 3D done "right," it was underwhelming.
//that said, I'll probably see The Hobbit in its 48 fps 3D.

The only movie I want to see in converted 3D is actually the original Star Wars trilogy. Not the Prequels though. I swear, the battle of Yevan IV, Battle of Hoth and the Battle of Endor in 3D would look amazing!

And could someone queue a picture of the green dancing girl in Jedi

Mugato: Who are you and what have you done with Martin Scorsese?

/DeNiro's doing screwball comedies
//has the whole world gone mad?

Okay, I can't defend De Niro's recent movies, but Hugo is nothing short of awesome. It's a celebration of cinema and watching it, it's easy to see why Scorsese wanted to make this movie.

yves0010: The only movie I want to see in converted 3D is

Nothing. Conversion only works if you don't look too closely at the image and if there's constant motion to hide the crappiness.

yves0010: The only movie I want to see in converted 3D is actually the original Star Wars trilogy

This is why we can't have nice things.

gunga galunga: Okay, I can't defend De Niro's recent movies, but Hugo is nothing short of awesome. It's a celebration of cinema and watching it, it's easy to see why Scorsese wanted to make this movie.

I liked what he did in Limitless. But judging from his choice of movies these days it looks like he's interested in just getting paid. Probably because he's getting older and wants to make sure his kids won't have to want for anything after he's gone.

gunga galunga: but Hugo is nothing short of awesome. It's a celebration of cinema and watching it, it's easy to see why Scorsese wanted to make this movie.

I came here to say the same thing. its the best movie I have seen in a long time. but it bored the shiat out of my 10 year old.

The problem I had with 3D, even in Avater, is that it forced me to only look at certain things. Yes, in film making in general the director is always cueing us to look at certain things in a scene, but usually I can look around at scenery and still appreciate it. With Avatar large chunks of the spectacular scenery were completely out of focus during 3D effect shots. I saw it in 3D first and regular 2D afterwards and I think I enjoyed the visuals much more the second time around.

That and having to wear a second pair of glasses over my own glasses is annoying as fark. And since they are progressive lenses the flat focal point for the 3D actually can mess with my depth perception. Forces my eyes to work twice as hard to focus as they normally do.

I just hope the porn industry doesn't pick up on this 3D craze, the last thing I need is to be dodging money shots during my fun time.

Run to Hugo 3D so you can quit complaining how 3d sucks and is ruining movie experiences.

/want to see it many more times
//may just get a 3d tv and wait for the blu ray

Mercutio74: yves0010: The only movie I want to see in converted 3D is

Nothing. Conversion only works if you don't look too closely at the image and if there's constant motion to hide the crappiness.

Hence the battles in the original Star Wars would be nice to have a 3D effect. And I am not talking about the pop our of the screen 3D, which I hate. I want to see the depth of field. The dog fights in the distance. Things like that.

Tax Boy: yves0010: The only movie I want to see in converted 3D is actually the original Star Wars trilogy

This is why we can't have nice things.

If done right, and I have seen it done right, Star Wars can have some awesome 3D potential. See Star Tours! The awesome battle scenes in 3D.

ReapTheChaos: I just hope the porn industry doesn't pick up on this 3D craze, the last thing I need is to be dodging money shots during my fun time.



If you can dodge a wrench...

Brother_Mouzone: gunga galunga: but Hugo is nothing short of awesome. It's a celebration of cinema and watching it, it's easy to see why Scorsese wanted to make this movie.

I came here to say the same thing. its the best movie I have seen in a long time. but it bored the shiat out of my 10 year old.

It was easily the best use of 3-D I've ever seen. Usually with 3-D, the gimmick wears off halfway through the movie and I don't even notice it anymore. With Hugo, there wasn't a single shot that didn't make the most out of the depth perception, and it never felt gimmicky. Even the "stuff flying out of the screen" moments had a purpose.

yves0010: Hence the battles in the original Star Wars would be nice to have a 3D effect. And I am not talking about the pop our of the screen 3D, which I hate. I want to see the depth of field. The dog fights in the distance. Things like that.

The space battles should be alright because mostly it'll be a star field or a planet or some easy to recreate tableu (and the ship models will be pretty easy too, so one ship passing in front of another won't be hard). The big problem would be stuff like Hoth and Endor and anything with a lot of people because the more you stretch the scene along the Z axis the more crap in the BG you have to interpolate. I think you'll probably notice that a lot of the conversion 3D ends up being a bit more subtle than something shot in 3D because it's easier to do a conversion is there's not an amazing amount of depth. The problem with conversion is inventing the stuff behind the FG that you can't see with the original 2D image. Clearly Lucas has no problem spending the money on something like this, so it should be watchable, but I don't think it's going to breathe new life into a series he's already ruined at every "modernization" pass he's done on them.

Lord_Dubu: As opposed to how your brain processes depth normally?

Uh, yes? I can perceive real depth without getting a headache.

Mercutio74: yves0010: Hence the battles in the original Star Wars would be nice to have a 3D effect. And I am not talking about the pop our of the screen 3D, which I hate. I want to see the depth of field. The dog fights in the distance. Things like that.

The space battles should be alright because mostly it'll be a star field or a planet or some easy to recreate tableu (and the ship models will be pretty easy too, so one ship passing in front of another won't be hard). The big problem would be stuff like Hoth and Endor and anything with a lot of people because the more you stretch the scene along the Z axis the more crap in the BG you have to interpolate. I think you'll probably notice that a lot of the conversion 3D ends up being a bit more subtle than something shot in 3D because it's easier to do a conversion is there's not an amazing amount of depth. The problem with conversion is inventing the stuff behind the FG that you can't see with the original 2D image. Clearly Lucas has no problem spending the money on something like this, so it should be watchable, but I don't think it's going to breathe new life into a series he's already ruined at every "modernization" pass he's done on them.

I just want to see the space battles and Hoth. And I think Hoth would be some what easier where its just the models fighting and not the humans involved. The background would be the snowy mountains nad blue sky mainly.

And you have to give Lucas credit, he did create a better sound quality, if I recall correctly with THX. So I think he could actually pull it off. No other movie I want to see converted.

yves0010: And you have to give Lucas credit, he did create a better sound quality, if I recall correctly with THX. So I think he could actually pull it off. No other movie I want to see converted.

THX is primarily just a means for ensuring that sound in a theatre sounds like the sound did in the mixer's mind and on the mix stage. It's a combination of a small bit of technology (some kind of "crossover circuit") with the main component being testing to make sure a theatre's acoustic properties are up to a certain standard. Things like non-paralell walls and a perforated screen to allow for proper center channel placement.

An a slightly related note, I think of Lucas more like Thomas Edison than a film maker. He's "invented" a whole lot of stuff that other people did the work on.

Mercutio74: yves0010: And you have to give Lucas credit, he did create a better sound quality, if I recall correctly with THX. So I think he could actually pull it off. No other movie I want to see converted.

THX is primarily just a means for ensuring that sound in a theatre sounds like the sound did in the mixer's mind and on the mix stage. It's a combination of a small bit of technology (some kind of "crossover circuit") with the main component being testing to make sure a theatre's acoustic properties are up to a certain standard. Things like non-paralell walls and a perforated screen to allow for proper center channel placement.

An a slightly related note, I think of Lucas more like Thomas Edison than a film maker. He's "invented" a whole lot of stuff that other people did the work on.

Yup, I thought of that too. Though its interesting about the THX part. I wasnt fully away of exactly what it did. Just read that he had a part in creating it. So I should of said he helped create it.

Avatar and Hugo are the only movies where 3D added to the experience.

Is it me or does Sacha Baron Cohen look like officer Crabtree?

grinding_journalist: Call me when there aren't glasses required, and "3D" isn't just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.

Yeah, same here! And when film makers use a series of individual images shown in rapid succession to cleverly trick your brain into believing that motion is occurring? I freakin' hate that too.

grinding_journalist: Call me when there aren't glasses required, and "3D" isn't just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.

Christ, don't tell this guy how film/video works!

That movie still depresses me solely for the reminder of how immature Americans are about anatomy.

First time in the theater we see his penis: laughter and giggles from the crowd. Okay, I get that. Some people were shocked.

Second time: laughter and giggles from the crowd.

Third time: laughter and giggles from the crowd.

Fourth time: etc etc etc.

In fairness, I live in a conservative, religious area, so your mileage may have varied.

amindtat you bastard, now he'll never watch movies again!

FerneJohn: That movie still depresses me solely for the reminder of how immature Americans are about anatomy.

First time in the theater we see his penis: laughter and giggles from the crowd. Okay, I get that. Some people were shocked.

Second time: laughter and giggles from the crowd.

Third time: laughter and giggles from the crowd.

Fourth time: etc etc etc.

In fairness, I live in a conservative, religious area, so your mileage may have varied.


Next time, try to keep yourself from giggling so much.

ThisNameSux: Avatar and Hugo are the only movies where 3D added to the experience.

I think you're forgetting a little masterpiece called Jackass 3D, sir. The experience of bees and poop flying right at me is one I'll not soon forget.

FerneJohn: That movie still depresses me solely for the reminder of how immature Americans are about anatomy.

First time in the theater we see his penis: laughter and giggles from the crowd. Okay, I get that. Some people were shocked.

Second time: laughter and giggles from the crowd.

Third time: laughter and giggles from the crowd.

Fourth time: etc etc etc.

In fairness, I live in a conservative, religious area, so your mileage may have varied.

Oh my god, when I saw it some guy kept yelling, "Look at that thing, it's tiny. My cock is twice as big."

_{/Then the people behind me told me to stop yelling}

I actually prefer to see movies in 3D - but only if they were filmed for 3D.

I do prefer it though... It's the only reason I go to the theater anymore. If not for 3D I'd just watch movies on my big screen HDTV at home instead and avoid the hassle. 3D keeps me buying theater tickets - period.

But that post-production "hey, we already filmed this, but just thought of a way to squeeze a few more bucks out of people" garbage - that's a whole other story. I'm not interested in that, just films which were shot and composed for 3D.

I have to disagree with TFA on something here:
3D aficionados will surely speak up for Avatar and The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn, which seem to be ideal examples. I liked Avatar a lot, and loved the experience of seeing it in the cinema even more, but it's the film that I remember, and not the 3D. When I went back to view the film again, I didn't feel any need to don the plastic glasses once again, and the film is just as good in 2D.

No. I loved Avatar, just absolutely loved it. I saw it 10 times in the theater, which includes once in Imax and once for the re-release........ and I have yet to watch it one time in 2D. It's just not the same. That film was made for 3D, and that's how it's best enjoyed. In 2D it just doesn't compare....

FerneJohn: ThisNameSux: Avatar and Hugo are the only movies where 3D added to the experience.

I think you're forgetting a little masterpiece called Jackass 3D, sir. The experience of bees and poop flying right at me is one I'll not soon forget.

Or a Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas, which had Danny Trejo's jizz spray bounce off a Christmas tree ornament and right out of the screen.

gunga galunga: FerneJohn: ThisNameSux: Avatar and Hugo are the only movies where 3D added to the experience.

I think you're forgetting a little masterpiece called Jackass 3D, sir. The experience of bees and poop flying right at me is one I'll not soon forget.

Or a Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas, which had Danny Trejo's jizz spray bounce off a Christmas tree ornament and right out of the screen.

I'm fairly certain a few women got pregnant from that experience.

still better than the headachs I get watching 3-Fricken-D.

amindtat: Yeah, same here! And when film makers use a series of individual images shown in rapid succession to cleverly trick your brain into believing that motion is occurring? I freakin' hate that too.

You realize that vision is actually more like film than what you think it is right? Your brain doesn't process some sort of continous stream of full motion, it does exactly what film does, processes a rapid stream of still images.

The problem with 3D films is that the focal plane is the same regardless of the depth of focus. That is what induces eye strain. You're still staring at one spot (the screen).

;May have been said, but from the article James cameron setting up a 3-d quality certification check would probably be the best thing to do for 3-d. Like what Nintendo did for the NES after the video game crash of 82, and every company has done since. Yeah there will still be tripe, but it will at least look a lot better.

amindtat: grinding_journalist: Call me when there aren't glasses required, and "3D" isn't just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.just a clever way of tricking the way your brain processes visual stimuli.

Yeah, same here! And when film makers use a series of individual images shown in rapid succession to cleverly trick your brain into believing that motion is occurring? I freakin' hate that too.

MorePeasPlease: amindtat you bastard, now he'll never watch movies again!

Way to intentionally miss my point- it's well documented that the way 3d projectors work, and the way that the "3d" image is perceived causes a significant portion of the audience discomfort, to the point of not really being able, or having the desire, to watch 3d movies. To me, a method of postproduction that nauseates your audience isn't advisable- and yes, I refer also to films that use the "frenetic-handheld-pov-shakycam" technique too.

I've never heard of anyone getting sick watching a flipbook, which is what you're referring to in "conventional" tv/animation/filmmaking, etc.

You guys just go ahead and keep defending that 25% increased ticket price, I'm sure hollywood is happy that many people feel the way you do.

simplicimus: I for one will never watch a 3D film! (blind in one eye)

True story. The head of Lionsgate films, who ultimately makes the decisions on what films they'll distribute, is also blind in one eye.