Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   The 3-D fad that Hollywood and electronics manufacturers were trying to shove down our throats has failed   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Satoru Iwata, eyestrains, Hollywood, Motion Picture Association of America, The Independent  
•       •       •

11905 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jul 2012 at 11:10 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-18 11:12:25 AM  
Yayyyyy. Yayyyyy.
 
2012-07-18 11:13:13 AM  
GOOD. Now get working on that robot I can have sex with.
 
2012-07-18 11:14:21 AM  
I decided to give 3D one more chance with Prometheus, and it just confirmed that I don't like it. It just doesn't add anything to most scenes, and when it's obvious it just strains my eyes.
 
2012-07-18 11:14:39 AM  
Good gods I hope so. What an awful way to watch a movie.

The one exception for me, however, was that My Bloody Valentine 3D. It hammed it up by throwing things or slowly pointing guns at the audience. It didn't hurt that the glasses allowed me to stare at my dates chest for most of the movie undetected.
 
2012-07-18 11:15:49 AM  
Good, finally free up the screens again so I can see my movies in a large stadium style seating and not reserve it for the stupid 3D shiat!

/Also FARK your 3D TVs... FARK THEM IN THE ARSE!
 
2012-07-18 11:16:16 AM  
Thank god.

On top of glasses on top of glasses, I don't see anything 3d in 3d. I see flat sprites floating in the air. Then I try and focus on that point in the air, and everything goes out of focus because nothing is actually there.

Gives me a serious headache.
 
2012-07-18 11:16:38 AM  
The only time I bother to see a 3D movie these days is when it's not available in a proper 2D variant. (and part of me would rather just stay home for being obligated to pay for a gimmick I see no value in)

/Fark 3D.
 
2012-07-18 11:19:28 AM  
Yeah, a year ago I'd have gone to whatever showing was convenient, if it was 3D that was fine.

Now, having seen 10 or 15 films in said 3D, I will find a 2D showing to attend, even if it means putting off seeing the movie for a week or going on a Tuesday night or something. Movies with only 3D showings available don't get watched.

Added the first bit to point out that this isn't a matter of being cheap. If I have 20$ to burn on a couple movie tickets I pretty much have 24$ to burn, if that small an amount of money makes a difference in my budget I'm not going to the cinema at all. Fact is, it's sheerly a matter of polarization-based 3D being farking terrible. Like, the red-and-blue glasses version from the '70s was massively better-looking and more watchable.

Terrible idea is terrible.
 
2012-07-18 11:20:36 AM  
Sorry. Piranha 3D just doesn't look as good without 3D.
 
2012-07-18 11:21:37 AM  
It's not even 3D. It's "Viewmaster"TM 3D. It's pop-up book 3D. It's two 2D layers on top of each other. It's not like the shark can come at the audience and you can walk around it and see the side of the shark. (insert Back to the Future reference here).

3D was big in the 50's because they wanted to get people into theaters because they were afraid of TV. 3D was moderately big in the 80's because they were afraid of home video. It's the same thing now. And I don't care what kind of cameras James Cameron "invented", it's all the same principle.

Now they have the D-Box things which are fun in the demos at the theater but they're 3 minutes long. I think they would get quite old in a 2 hour movie.
 
2012-07-18 11:21:43 AM  
My mom absolutely needed to get a 3D TV (Samsung), and though I tried to dissuade her, she got it
anyway. It makes her happy, and God knows she needs that these days.

It does OK at 2D to 3D conversion, and it has a great picture in any mode, and has lots of built in
apps, USB ports and wifi, so its not a total white elephant.
 
2012-07-18 11:22:52 AM  
My wife and I are thinking about getting a TV soon. One must for me? No 3D. It adds about $1,000 to the price, and is absolutely useless. You either get that headache-inducing flicker, or you lose half the resolution. Gah, no thanks.

It's ridiculous when a 60" Samsung plasma costs like $800, but a 60" Samsung LED 3D costs like $2,400. Less quality screen with a gimmick carries a raping price. Pretty dumb.

/Avengers was good in 3D however, but too dark
 
2012-07-18 11:23:14 AM  
Less 3D, more IMAX.
 
2012-07-18 11:23:26 AM  
One problem is these studios suck at producing 3d content.

Too often, the they take the cheap way out and use post production processing on 2d film. As a result, the 3d objects look like flat cardboard cutouts moving around in the background.

Also, the depth is often all wrong and way too "shallow." more like bumps and dents than a scene you can walk into.

Disappointing.

(Avatar, however, has done the best job. Time to start cloning James Cameron)
 
2012-07-18 11:23:55 AM  
They just need to scrap the current technology altogether; if 3D is to become a viable technology, it needs to be radically different from how it's been presented to date. I'm too cheap to spend $15+ on a ticket to see a movie in 3D, let alone buy a Blu-Ray player, 3D TV, and any and all movies available in 3D. Plus, based on what I've watched on 3D TVs, I'm pretty sure I'd get some weird motion sickness anyway.
 
2012-07-18 11:24:32 AM  

KellyX: Good, finally free up the screens again so I can see my movies in a large stadium style seating and not reserve it for the stupid 3D shiat!

/Also FARK your 3D TVs... FARK THEM IN THE ARSE!


This is one of the big things for me too. I could deal with the reduced 2D showings to a point because there was still enough that I could see the movie. But dammit it pissed me off that all the 2D showings seemed to be relegated to the smaller screens.
 
2012-07-18 11:24:39 AM  
I'd rather have developers working on true virtual reality video games. I swear, give me the ability to have a lightsaber dual with Darth Vader and I will never ask for anything else vide game related as long as I live.
 
2012-07-18 11:24:43 AM  
I like my EVO 3D. Of course I don't have to wear glasses with that thing. I'm usually drunk when I go to the movie theater so I can never focus for 2 hours with those.
 
2012-07-18 11:27:43 AM  
Guess I'm in a minority here. I enjoy well produced 3D. Not the post production stuff mind you. But when a film is shot in 3D and shot well it's a pretty immersive experience.
 
2012-07-18 11:27:45 AM  

Mugato: It's not even 3D. It's "Viewmaster"TM 3D. It's pop-up book 3D. It's two 2D layers on top of each other. It's not like the shark can come at the audience and you can walk around it and see the side of the shark. (insert Back to the Future reference here).

3D was big in the 50's because they wanted to get people into theaters because they were afraid of TV. 3D was moderately big in the 80's because they were afraid of home video. It's the same thing now. And I don't care what kind of cameras James Cameron "invented", it's all the same principle.

Now they have the D-Box things which are fun in the demos at the theater but they're 3 minutes long. I think they would get quite old in a 2 hour movie.


DBox things? Please, do expound.
 
2012-07-18 11:30:38 AM  
I've only seen one thing in 3D that impressed me: of all things it was the underwater scene at the very beginning of Dolphin Tale. I think 3D helps give depth to low-visibility scenes that would otherwise lack it. But for the 99.5% of the movie that was above water, 3D added nothing for me.
 
2012-07-18 11:32:10 AM  
Titanic 3-D was really, really good.
 
2012-07-18 11:32:25 AM  

tanman1975: Too often, the they take the cheap way out and use post production processing on 2d film.


http://realorfake3d.com has a list of which ones did this, and which ones were filmed in real (or "Viewmaster™" if you prefer) 3D.
 
2012-07-18 11:32:36 AM  

Mugato: It's not even 3D. It's "Viewmaster"TM 3D. It's pop-up book 3D. It's two 2D layers on top of each other. It's not like the shark can come at the audience and you can walk around it and see the side of the shark. (insert Back to the Future reference here).


Yep, that's what I've been calling it for a long time: Viewmaster at 24fps.

One really big problem that the industry has created for itself: having burned the term "3D" on this second-rate stereoscopy, what is it going to do when it finally has authentic 3D?
 
2012-07-18 11:32:36 AM  
The only 3D movie I've seen was "Avengers". Occasionally, it looked like something was floating in front of the main screen. Lame. Just as lame as back in the '60s, but with a darker picture and nicer glasses.
 
2012-07-18 11:32:56 AM  

sure haven't: My wife and I are thinking about getting a TV soon. One must for me? No 3D. It adds about $1,000 to the price, and is absolutely useless. You either get that headache-inducing flicker, or you lose half the resolution. Gah, no thanks.

It's ridiculous when a 60" Samsung plasma costs like $800, but a 60" Samsung LED 3D costs like $2,400. Less quality screen with a gimmick carries a raping price. Pretty dumb.

/Avengers was good in 3D however, but too dark


I don't know how recently you've checked prices, but a big indicator that 3D has fallen is that the difference between 3D TVs and non-3D equivalents at about that size is only about $200-$400 now.
 
2012-07-18 11:33:00 AM  

wildsnowllama: DBox things? Please, do expound.


I almost bought tickets to Hunger Games with the motion-sickness-prone girl for those as sort of a horrible prank but then came to my senses.

They are essentially movie theater seats that move according to the action on screen. No, I can't imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
 
2012-07-18 11:33:59 AM  

MightyPez: Good gods I hope so. What an awful way to watch a movie.

The one exception for me, however, was that My Bloody Valentine 3D. It hammed it up by throwing things or slowly pointing guns at the audience. It didn't hurt that the glasses allowed me to stare at my dates chest for most of the movie undetected.


You brought a chest full of dates to a movie theater?
 
2012-07-18 11:34:24 AM  
True, 3D is lame, but I hope they don't give up on it for another decade without at least trying to make some 3D porn.
 
2012-07-18 11:35:02 AM  
Anyway, my 3D phone does rock, and I giggle all the time taking 3D videos of dogs and cars and stuff running at me.
 
2012-07-18 11:35:07 AM  

Confabulat: wildsnowllama: DBox things? Please, do expound.

I almost bought tickets to Hunger Games with the motion-sickness-prone girl for those as sort of a horrible prank but then came to my senses.

They are essentially movie theater seats that move according to the action on screen. No, I can't imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea.


Ugh.
 
2012-07-18 11:36:18 AM  

imontheinternet: True, 3D is lame, but I hope they don't give up on it for another decade without at least trying to make some 3D porn.


uh, dude. There's not exactly a shortage of that. Hell, you can grab some red/cyan glasses for a buck and then Google until your pants are coming right at you.
 
2012-07-18 11:36:49 AM  

devilEther: Titanic 3-D was really, really good.


The trailer looks like a huge improvement on the original. Titanic: Super 3D
 
2012-07-18 11:37:00 AM  
I really do enjoy 3D when it's done well and adds to the experience. Unfortunately there are only a couple of movies that have actually used the medium in that way. I can think of Avatar, Hugo, Tin Tin, and even Piranha 3D as good examples where 3D really added to my enjoyment. Too many other times it either adds nothing, except to the cost of the ticket, or it's a distraction.

So my question would be, if filmmakers got better at using 3D would more people warm to it?
 
2012-07-18 11:37:18 AM  

Lord_Dubu: Guess I'm in a minority here. I enjoy well produced 3D. Not the post production stuff mind you. But when a film is shot in 3D and shot well it's a pretty immersive experience.


I agree. I loved Hugo in 3D, and it was one of the best 3D movies I've seen. Scorsese knew what he was doing and it worked beautifully. I pity anyone who didn't see it 3D. One of my other favorite 3D experiences was Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The depth of field was amazing, and as a bonus, filming in 3D forced Michael Bay to actually hold the camera still so we could see what was going on. It was fantastic. Jackass 3D was also really good.

I didn't see Prometheus in 3D but I heard good things. I thought about seeing it again in 3D, but I just couldn't make myself. So I went to see Madagascar 3 in 3D instead. Much better movie.
 
2012-07-18 11:38:43 AM  

Confabulat: wildsnowllama: DBox things? Please, do expound.

I almost bought tickets to Hunger Games with the motion-sickness-prone girl for those as sort of a horrible prank but then came to my senses.

They are essentially movie theater seats that move according to the action on screen. No, I can't imagine how anyone thinks this is a good idea.


Yeah, that's basically it. Like if there's a car chase in the movie and the car veers left, your seat veers left. They have a demo in my theater that plays it with trailers and if I have time I do it and it's cool.....for the 3 minute trailer.
 
2012-07-18 11:41:23 AM  
I don't go to the movies very often anymore and have only seen one movie in 3d so far (Avengers). I found it distracting and pretty much added nothing positive to the movie experience. Everyone else that was with me loved the 3d aspect though, so what do I know? I suspect that it might work better for animation, but aside from that, I will choose the non-3d option if available in the future.
 
2012-07-18 11:41:42 AM  
My 4D TV, and its dolphin friends, raped me.

/Rape jokes, never funny
 
2012-07-18 11:42:02 AM  
"The days where you absolutely had to see a hit movie in 3-D are over."

Or, never existed in the first place.
 
2012-07-18 11:43:57 AM  
I walk around with one eye closed because 3D is so stupid.
I'm thinking of bursting one of my eardrums too, so that I can only hear in mono.

Approves of the 3D treatment of his vampire killing days.
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-07-18 11:44:14 AM  
Right, cause we all want to pay even MORE for a movie that we can watch for less money right down the hall. We also dont have to deal with silly glasses.
Maybe if they hadnt charged more to see a 3-D movie it would have caught on better.
 
2012-07-18 11:44:56 AM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: I don't go to the movies very often anymore and have only seen one movie in 3d so far (Avengers). I found it distracting and pretty much added nothing positive to the movie experience. Everyone else that was with me loved the 3d aspect though, so what do I know? I suspect that it might work better for animation, but aside from that, I will choose the non-3d option if available in the future.


Avengers wasn't shot in 3D it was post converted into 3D to get people to pay more for tickets.
 
2012-07-18 11:44:58 AM  

fluffy2097: Thank god.

On top of glasses on top of glasses, I don't see anything 3d in 3d. I see flat sprites floating in the air. Then I try and focus on that point in the air, and everything goes out of focus because nothing is actually there.

Gives me a serious headache.


Same here. The depth cues trick your eyes in to shifting in to the WRONG focus, and then back. Repeatedly.

And the lenses of the glasses are too small (cheap) so you can't sit close and see the whole screen at once.

For me, 3D movies = watching through a porthole and getting a headache.

Good riddance.
 
2012-07-18 11:45:27 AM  
Well anyway I was saying I liked my 3D phone, and there are two huge reasons why it's not as annoying as most 3D:

1) No glasses;
2) Entirely optional.

Sure then it's a gimmick and a novelty, but it's kind of a fun one. And taking 3D photos and videos makes me laugh a lot. But I think those two things are key to enjoying 3D.

No glasses.
Entirely optional.
 
2012-07-18 11:45:30 AM  
I LOVE 3D.

If only for one reason:

Since cinemas can't do without the 2D versions and since the simpletons and douchebags flock to the 3D screens, I get to watch my movies in peace and glorious 2D.
 
2012-07-18 11:45:46 AM  
I suppose Avatar looked really good in 3D because the film was mostly CG. I think 3D works best with cartoon animation. And it certainly didn't have anything else but the visuals going for it.
 
2012-07-18 11:46:05 AM  
I was just noticing the other day that while most high end TVs are 3D capable, almost nobody is pushing that as a feature anymore.
 
2012-07-18 11:46:52 AM  

Carth: Avengers wasn't shot in 3D it was post converted into 3D to get people to pay more for tickets.


The cheap bastards who started doing this are part of why 3D failed.

I think it would have failed anyway, but they weren't helping matters.

The 2D --> 3D conversion made me think of the old 70's spiderman cartoons where the animation was just paper cutouts being dragged across the screen.
 
2012-07-18 11:49:08 AM  
I bought the 3D fad at first. Avatar was good 3D, but the post production add on of 3d to a lot of movies it usually bad.

The Hobbit is supposed to be 3D along with 48 fps, right?
 
2012-07-18 11:50:41 AM  

Mugato: Yeah, that's basically it. Like if there's a car chase in the movie and the car veers left, your seat veers left. They have a demo in my theater that plays it with trailers and if I have time I do it and it's cool.....for the 3 minute trailer


I just wonder if durring a steamy bit in a thriller, the seats rock back and forth?
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report