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.

(BBC)   People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the insane nausea they cause   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Life of Pi, Baz Luhrmann, Ang Lee, Werner Herzog, good directions  
•       •       •

17759 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 6:04 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-25 03:53:21 PM  
Ang Lee is adamant that used intelligently 3D has now earned its place in drama: "Maybe because the 3D experience is still new, it does confuse some audiences

3D movies have been around since the '50s. And they're annoying.
 
2012-12-25 03:57:33 PM  
Avatar was awesome in 3D.
 
2012-12-25 04:31:57 PM  
I have yet to see one.
 
2012-12-25 04:33:03 PM  

Mugato: Ang Lee is adamant that used intelligently 3D has now earned its place in drama: "Maybe because the 3D experience is still new, it does confuse some audiences

3D movies have been around since the '50s. And they're annoying.


Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


You are both correct in a way.  3D in general is very annoying.  Mearly a gimmick to charge more.  However, when used to "bring the enviroment alive" so to speak, instead of just popping out at you, then it can really earn it's place and is well worth the extra money.  Good Examples: Avatar, Life of Pi  Bad Examples:  Just about anything else.
 
2012-12-25 04:33:54 PM  
People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the insane nausea they cause to their wallets

Fixed
 
2012-12-25 05:28:52 PM  
It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.
 
2012-12-25 05:31:33 PM  
Also: the only time I seem to really notice it is when there are VERY small objects on the screen.

Ash falling and insects in Avatar.

A super long shot of the ship moving across the screen in Prometheus.
 
2012-12-25 06:06:01 PM  
Good. its a wretched gimmick.
 
2012-12-25 06:09:07 PM  
I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.
 
S23
2012-12-25 06:11:51 PM  
same old story..
inny versus outie

Only in this case the outie is the freak.
 
2012-12-25 06:12:56 PM  
I have yet to see a movie in theaters.. but only cause I don't see any movies in the theaters. I am also to poor to own a 3d tv.
...but I want one.. I want a good passive 3d tv. I have an HTC Evo 3d and I love using the Phereo app to sift through thousands of 3d images other people have taken. Despite losing toughly half the resolution of the screen for the 3d effect, I see more detail from 3d pictures and movies just because they are in 3d vs high res 2d.

What annoys me and is why I have not bothered with downloading and viewing 3d hollywood movies on it is aside from avatar, MOST live action hollywood movies are 2d and turned into 3d in post production which is crap.
3d May not be the hotness for hollywood movies and 3d.. but making your own is easy and the results can be stunning. Also IMO it is best to start taking 3d photos as soon as possible.. 3d display tech will only get better.
 
2012-12-25 06:13:56 PM  
I go to watch movies.. 3d glasses and effects are as much of an unwanted and annoying distraction as the girl playing on her mobile in the next row.
 
2012-12-25 06:15:08 PM  
The glassese give me a headache.
 
2012-12-25 06:15:43 PM  
People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the jacked up prices of the tickets and the poor use of the technology.

I read Avatar had a weak story so the 3D wasn't going to lure me to pay top dollar on a gimmick. Hugo was a good story though and used 3D pretty well. And though I skipped Avatar for the reasons I gave, I was excited to see Promethius because it was supposed to be an Alien prequel, so I paid to see it in 3D. What I paid for was to see a movie with a weak story but great use of 3D. So because of Promethius I definitely won't see another 3D film.
 
2012-12-25 06:16:28 PM  
I can't even see 3D (something with my eyes, forget what my eye doctor called it) so it is very annoying when a movie is only in 3D. Worse I still have to wear those dumb glasses over my eyeglasses else the movie is all fuzzy. Feh!
 
2012-12-25 06:16:44 PM  
Kramer vs. Kramer in 3D was the shiznit.
 
2012-12-25 06:17:27 PM  
I'm willing to bet that this has just as much to do with the extra $2.50 (here in Detroit anyhow) per head they want for the '3D' experience as anything else.
 
2012-12-25 06:18:32 PM  
I just saw The Life of Pi in 3D. The 3D did absolutely NOTHING for the movie at all.

Now Avatar in 3D? That was actually worth it especially since some of the stuff in the movie was supposed to be holographic. Minority Report might actually be good in 3D but if you took something like "You've Got Mail" and converted it into 3D it'd be a wholesale waste of money.
 
2012-12-25 06:18:52 PM  

Wadded Beef: Kramer vs. Kramer in 3D was the shiznit.


The 3D re-release of Caddy Shack makes the clubs pop right out of the screen!
 
2012-12-25 06:20:30 PM  
Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...
 
2012-12-25 06:21:58 PM  
Depends on the movie.

In one resident evil movie, the 3d was just distracting, I recall a specific scene where a knife came through the door next to a person's head, the 3d was keyed to focus on the person's face, whereas my mind was trying to focus on the knifepoint, very disorienting.

On the flip side, I saw another movie (that I don't recall the name of) and the 3d was very well done, they used it very sparingly (mostly to separate foreground from background) and it worked well.
 
2012-12-25 06:22:45 PM  
If they'd stop giving out child sized glasses to everyone, 3D films might be bearable.

I am an adult. A huge adult. It's not fun having to snap the glasses into pieces and just hold them on my face for 2 hours because the things are so tight they cause migraines.
 
2012-12-25 06:22:58 PM  
 
2012-12-25 06:23:26 PM  
I get a terrible migraine from 3D movies so I try to watch movies in 2D. It's also a pain to wear 3d glasses over my own pair. I really wanted to watch Life Of Pi but all the local theaters had 3D only.
 
2012-12-25 06:24:52 PM  
They trot this "3d" bullshiat out and sell it to a new group of suckers every 20 years. It always dies, because its farking dumb.

In 20 years when you can get a retina display density 90" wall tv 8000x6000 pixel panel so sharp and clear it's photorealistic, they won't need stupid nausea inducing perceptual tricks, just powerful gpu's and intelligent post processing in your media playing software. It might be cool at that point. The current tech isn't fundamentally different from cheesy 70s and 80s 3d.

It sucks, and everyone that loves it sucks and should die :p
 
2012-12-25 06:25:36 PM  

gaspode: I go to watch movies.. 3d glasses and effects are as much of an unwanted and annoying distraction as the girl playing on her mobile in the next row.


Even though movie theaters here in the US have multiple and aggravating reminders to not use those things, I ALWAYS see people fiddling with them during the film. I can barely tolerate it 'cause it drags my attention from the big screen....
 
2012-12-25 06:27:13 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


Both of them?
 
2012-12-25 06:27:25 PM  
And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?
 
2012-12-25 06:30:03 PM  
I hope the "gimmick" of it dies, the way it's used to "throw" things at you is often ridiculous, and the cause of what bothers most(myself included).

I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3d, and thought it was wonderful. It felt quite different from other 3d movies, and far less intrusive about it. It felt much more immersive without being overbearing. I think it's a good testament to the technology, as much as Avatar was for the gimmick of it...

/it has it's place
//still a gimmick
///I don't go to movies much these days, saw Skyfall and The Hobbit recently, no regrets...
 
2012-12-25 06:30:12 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more
 
2012-12-25 06:31:31 PM  
From TFA:

"The next big test may be Baz Luhrman's version of The Great Gatsby, due for release in May and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It doesn't seem like a natural fit for 3D, but Luhrmann's a very stylistic director and he may make it work."

That sounds like that could be the biggest disaster in film history.
 
2012-12-25 06:32:53 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.
 
2012-12-25 06:32:53 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


WOULD you please just for one day stop pissing on the dreams of the future. Just.. you know.. for maybe on holiday?
 
2012-12-25 06:33:08 PM  
I only see my films in 1-D.
/2D is too mainstream
 
2012-12-25 06:33:58 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more


Your lack of faith is disturbing
 
2012-12-25 06:34:52 PM  
I love 3D including Avatar and the new Hobbit. The "naysayers" can go along with the people biatching about "color" being a "gimmick" and how sound really "ruins" and picture and is annoying. The more immersive they can make the movies the better. The rest of you can go rot with your 2D and mono sound and other crappola from the past.
 
2012-12-25 06:35:44 PM  
I just got home from my first 3D movie ever, The Hobbit. My friends and I missed an earlier screening and were surprised to find that the seats for ours were assigned. Not only did we get the best seats in the house but the glasses didn't give me a headache. Not bad.
 
2012-12-25 06:36:01 PM  
Well hopefully Heaven's Gate will come out in 3D. I've been hearing rave reviews of this 1980 film recently with themes of class warfare and elitism. If it was released in 2012 instead of 1980, it would be the film of the year and probably reviewed the Western genre.
 
2012-12-25 06:36:14 PM  
And in 12 years there will be another wave of 3D movies which people will eventually get tired of.
 
2012-12-25 06:36:15 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more


I dunno, we still quote Shakespeare, hell, we still quote Socrates and Cicero and while L. Frank Baum isn't exactly Shakespeare, he's still pretty big from an American lit standpoint. Just sayin.
 
2012-12-25 06:36:26 PM  
The only movie I've ever seen that didn't abuse the hell out of 3D and actually used it to subtly enhance the experience was Coraline. Using 3D with stop-motion or skillful CGI can help you feel like you're in the movie, but if they can't spare an extra million or so for decent dialogue, a logical, engaging story or likable, interesting characters its just a waste of time.
 
2012-12-25 06:38:01 PM  
I'm over it because of the price

/saw avatar in regular, 3D, and imax 3d
//saw it in the 3d methods because they were payed for me
///imax was better, but still a pain in the ass because I wear glasses
 
2012-12-25 06:38:03 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


...and you've finally made your way to my ignore list. Just shut up about the 3D printing already. I'm pretty skeptical of it myself, but you're to the point where you're shiatting totally unrelated threads.

www.threadbombing.com
 
2012-12-25 06:40:02 PM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-12-25 06:40:43 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


The people who are heralding them as some kind of Star Trek-like replicators are misinformed, sensationalist, or both.  For modeling, rapid prototyping, or just playing around to make some cool stuff though they're pretty nifty.
 
2012-12-25 06:44:25 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more


Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.
 
2012-12-25 06:44:40 PM  

Mad_Radhu: ...and you've finally made your way to my ignore list. Just shut up about the 3D printing already. I'm pretty skeptical of it myself, but you're to the point where you're shiatting totally unrelated threads.


Seriously. I've been as skeptical as anyone and I cringed when I read that post. Some people just don't know when to STFU.
 
2012-12-25 06:44:44 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.


I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.
 
2012-12-25 06:48:33 PM  
BTW, avoid the 44fps version of The Hobbit. It looks like a Mexican soap opera.
 
2012-12-25 06:48:56 PM  
Sure Avatar grossed big, the 3D tickets cost more than dinner!

The new system doesn't make me sick like earlier versions, but all I saw was a couple things floating in front of the screen occasionally. Anyone who thought this is 3D has their brain wired funny.
 
2012-12-25 06:52:10 PM  

Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.


I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle
 
2012-12-25 06:52:12 PM  

fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.


... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link
 
2012-12-25 06:52:21 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D. The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D. I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all. I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming. Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey


Last year, I got a good deal on a Samsung 55" 8000 series and basically bought it for the panel quality, with the 3D as a bonus. If you aren't paying for the glasses, it probably doesn't add that much to the cost of the set. They just have to add a special mode into the display hardware that interleaved the left frames, and some sort of sync system for the glasses (either IR or Bluetooth) which isn't terribly expensive to implement. I'm more annoyed that every high end HDTV includes a terrible smart TV system that is crap compared to the media streaming on every box you'd expect to have plugged into that TV (Xbox, Wii U, PS3, Apple TV, Roku, Blu-ray player, etc), which I'm paying for but never use. At least the 3D is nice for games like Super Stardust, Wipeout, and Arkham City that use it to good effect.
 
2012-12-25 06:53:25 PM  
Um, we cut WAY back on movies in general because of the price. So many other things we can do for that much $ or less. Plus, I hate, hate, hate long movies. I don't have the patience, I hate sitting in an uncomfortable seat for that long, it makes me tired, bah!

The Hobbit? Not going to see it in theaters... will wait for it to come out on video and then break it into 2 nights.

/no I don't watch tv for more than 40-50 minutes at a time...
 
2012-12-25 06:54:34 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?

...and you've finally made your way to my ignore list. Just shut up about the 3D printing already. I'm pretty skeptical of it myself, but you're to the point where you're shiatting totally unrelated threads.

[www.threadbombing.com image 642x482]


Wait, what's wrong with 3D printing?

/must have missed a few threads
 
2012-12-25 06:55:00 PM  

neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.


There are diminishing returns from higher resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  I recently bought an iPad with the retina display, and I love it, I picked it over the MS Surface mainly because of the better screen, but I hold the tablet relatively close to my face while using it, the same can't be said for a TV.  Here's a chart that shows the ability to discern resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  It won't hold absolutely true for everyone, as some people have better eyesight than others, but it's a good baseline:

www.blogcdn.com

Most homes seem to top off on screen size between 50"-60" and viewing distances of around 10' or so, which makes any additional resolution above 1080p essentially wasted.  Instead of packing in more pixels I'd like to see TV makers concentrate on improving black levels, reducing motion blur and SOE, improving color accuracy, and reducing input lag.
 
2012-12-25 06:55:03 PM  
I'm a huge film snob. I think when 3d reemerged a few years back in the form of Real3d beginning with Superman Returns that it was mostly a gimmick. And it mostly was.

Avatar made me think: Hmmm maybe this could be used for film improvement.

Prometheus (which sucked) and Life of Pi (which was good) made me realize that Real3d could be awesome if used subtly.

I think that IMAX is the best asset for filmmakers now but 3d is a becoming a legitimate option.
 
2012-12-25 06:57:13 PM  
People are done with 3D movies because, for a brief moment in time, 3D was the only thing that made going to the theater a unique experience. Once we had 50+ inch 1920x1080 displays and 5.1-7.1 channel sound in every household, there was no reason to go out to see a movie unless you just had to see it on opening day. You could have decent snacks and drink beer at home without having to put up with a crying baby in an R rated movie at 10pm. So the studios revived 3D and, for a couple years, had an edge again. But now we can get 3D at home for cheap so why bother going out?
 
2012-12-25 06:59:07 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


Nearly every new is 3d capable. It's not something special you buy.

/TMYK
 
2012-12-25 06:59:16 PM  
Shadow Blasko: The dreams of the future? A hot glue gun on the end of an old XY plotter? Dream big, champ.

themindiswatching: It's the breathless, uncritical gee-whiz hype I can't stand. And the tossing of every single machining process of the last few decades into the "3D printing" bin, and then thinking that the 300$ toy you bought is going to print a car or an Airbus in just a few weeks. Other than that, it's great.
 
2012-12-25 06:59:28 PM  

gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle


Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.
 
2012-12-25 07:01:05 PM  

People_are_Idiots: fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.

... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link


If they don't provide them at the theater what good are they?
 
2012-12-25 07:01:53 PM  

skinink: People are done with 3D movies, probably because of the jacked up prices of the tickets and the poor use of the technology.


I wholeheartedly agree. If the movie's in 3D I want to feel like I'm part of the action. My fave of the "new" 3D movies was (surprisingly) Piranha 3D. It had a funny plot (I think it was made to sort of make fun of the original), and the 3D made it feel more realistic, despite the fantastic setting. The worst 3D movie? Avatar. Sure the movie was pretty, but the 3D was kinda wasted.
 
2012-12-25 07:01:55 PM  

Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.


Which is why it made 2.8 billion.
 
2012-12-25 07:04:18 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: themindiswatching: It's the breathless, uncritical gee-whiz hype I can't stand. And the tossing of every single machining process of the last few decades into the "3D printing" bin, and then thinking that the 300$ toy you bought is going to print a car or an Airbus in just a few weeks. Other than that, it's great.


Printing your own gun is possible now.
 
2012-12-25 07:04:32 PM  

fusillade762: People_are_Idiots: fusillade762: It also tends to make everything look too dark.

And I wear glasses so fitting a second pair over the first is always a pain in the ass.

... you do know they make clip-ons now don't you?

Link

If they don't provide them at the theater what good are they?


They don't because RealD doesn't provide them. Of course, RealD also wants you "recycle" your glasses. I recycle by taking them home, and reusing them when I watch another 3D movie.

I also typically by my own 3D glasses. I hate the "old-school" design, and have better pairs at home...

/so wish that could be a discount on the price.
 
2012-12-25 07:05:17 PM  
I just downloaded 3dtv.stl and am about to 3d print my first 3d tv.
 
2012-12-25 07:05:43 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Here's a chart that shows the ability to discern resolution depending on screen size and viewing distance.  It won't hold absolutely true for everyone, as some people have better eyesight than others, but it's a good baseline:


Holy crap.  By that graph's logic, I need about a 80" diagonal tv for 1080 to matter.  (Our living room is awkwardly shaped, something like 12x24.)
 
2012-12-25 07:05:59 PM  
You're both right.
 
2012-12-25 07:06:28 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


This ^

However as stated, not every movie should be done in 3D - the formula is not "Lets release it in 3D and automatically see a 30%+ increase in ticket sales!" - Avatar was groundbreaking, but I think 3 years later, everybody has learned that "doing it in 3D" doesn't mean its better.

The quip about never seeing a Quinten Tarantino movie in 3D is spot on - his movies honestly would not be any better done in 3D than they already are.
 
2012-12-25 07:06:44 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


I'm having trouble computing Avatar and awesome in the same sentence.


/Seriously
//that movie was literally garbage
///yes i was drunk when i watched, shouldn't that reinforce my point?
 
2012-12-25 07:11:12 PM  
The Hobbit in HFR (48fps) 3D was pretty incredible. Seen it twice in that format. I did have issues with the characters looking like they were walking a little quickly, a problem with the new tech. It was better on the 2nd viewing though.

I was also on LSD for my second HFR 3D screening, so that increased the awe factor by about ten.
 
2012-12-25 07:12:36 PM  
I haven't been to the movies since LOTR. What's the point?

I am surprised 3d porn isn't bigger. My husband couldn't find anything decent to watch free on my Evo!
 
2012-12-25 07:13:35 PM  

S23: same old story..
inny versus outie

Only in this case the outie is the freak.


Freaky, Outtie!
 
2012-12-25 07:19:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.

Which is why it made 2.8 billion.


because people are sheep and must see the new big thing? it was a tired plot with cardboard characters. deal with it.
 
2012-12-25 07:19:32 PM  
Avatar in 3d was pretty good at showing the tech and its limitations..I felt like there were two layers on the screen : one 3D popping out, and another stale one in the background. The apparent difference of "framerate"/chopiness did bother me since it forced my view point towards the popping out instead of having my eyes wander...Kind of a focus issue.
Brought my dad to see it and the last time i ever went to the movies with him was during Jurassic park 1!
I gather it's the way to go. Needs improvement for complete immersion.
 
2012-12-25 07:21:40 PM  
The Avengers used 3D perfectly: to give depth to the action without beating you over the head with THREE DIMENSIONS and of course to make ScarJo's boobs more enjoyable as well.
 
2012-12-25 07:22:36 PM  
what about 4D MOOVIES!!
 
2012-12-25 07:26:41 PM  
Dredd 3D was the best use of 3D ive seen so far, foreground background seperation, and mostly slow-mos.

Looked fkin brilliant.

Avatar might have made alot of money, but it is complete crap.

If you like Avatar, you are pathetic. shiat story, way too long, and all round bad.
I get it you like crap predictable stories that explain every plot device to come in the first 30 mins.

Just one big CGI 3D ad.


Unobtanium. Please.
 
2012-12-25 07:29:26 PM  
what bothers me is that when there is a trailer on TV for the latest lame crap hollywood has decided to gift us with it seems to have a "in 3D" tag. watching grass grow IN 3D. some lame sequel cartoon number 8 IN 3D. it's a gimmick.

read this thread and count how many movies folks say are enhanced by 3D. now how many movies came out in 3D? yeah i thought so. plus not mentioned much is the poor projection problems 2D vs 3D.
 
2012-12-25 07:31:22 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


because you were buying books?
 
2012-12-25 07:31:31 PM  
Just because some movie made the most money doesn't mean it's good. From what I take from everything I read about Avatar is that seeing the 3D effects is amazing but the story was nothing special, if not cliched. And the price of the 3D tickets is part of the reason it made big box office: I kept reading you would waste your time if you didn't see Avatar in 3D.

I finally saw Avatar on a flight and I thought it was just an okay film; it's not even one of the better sci-fi films ever made. I can't believe it's the top grossing film ever. And saying a movie must be good if it makes a ton of money proves to be stupid when you see the fifth biggest gross of all time belongs to "Transformers: Dark of the Moon". That movie was bad.
 
2012-12-25 07:34:25 PM  

Mugato: Ang Lee is adamant that used intelligently 3D has now earned its place in drama: "Maybe because the 3D experience is still new, it does confuse some audiences

3D movies have been around since the '50s. And they're annoying.


3d porn form the '70s is farking hilarious. I can't say I've ever found any use for it in any other context.

Maybe Dredd 3D. Maybe.
 
2012-12-25 07:34:37 PM  
Anyone who thinks 3d suck and hope it dies prolly thought the same of bluray, dvd.
 
2012-12-25 07:37:06 PM  

JeffMD: Anyone who thinks 3d suck and hope it dies prolly thought the same of bluray, dvd.


BluRay and DVD are dying, though. See: iTunes Store, Google Play.
 
2012-12-25 07:37:34 PM  
I saw The Hobbit in 3D IMAX and regret that, to some extent. The movie was terrific, but the 3D aspect was a big distraction. It's especially odd during a dramatic sequence, when Gandalf or Bilbo is protruding like something out of a pop-up book.

IMAX is great (saw TDKR in that format as well), but I'm avoiding 3D in the future.
 
2012-12-25 07:37:37 PM  
I am just sick of paying an extra $5 for "the experience."
 
2012-12-25 07:41:33 PM  

spidermilk: Um, we cut WAY back on movies in general because of the price. So many other things we can do for that much $ or less. Plus, I hate, hate, hate long movies. I don't have the patience, I hate sitting in an uncomfortable seat for that long, it makes me tired, bah!

The Hobbit? Not going to see it in theaters... will wait for it to come out on video and then break it into 2 nights.

/no I don't watch tv for more than 40-50 minutes at a time...


Why? I don't watch any TV except for very occasionally on the Internet, and don't see many movies either, but (either despite or because of that) I have no problem with long movies. 3 hours is more than fine if it's done well.
 
2012-12-25 07:42:02 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Nemo's Brother: But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book.

Which is why it made 2.8 billion.


P.T. Barnum was correct: there's once born every minute and you can never go wrong underestimating the poor taste of the American public.

/Pro-tip: Not every object's actual worth can be reduced to monetary value.
//Or do you contend Look Who's Talking 2 (Gross: $47,789,074) was a substantially better, more culturally-impactful movie than Resevoir Dogs (Gross: $2,832,029)?
 
2012-12-25 07:43:34 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: what about 4D MOOVIES!!


I'm still waiting for Smell-o-Vision to make a comeback.
 
2012-12-25 07:46:19 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz?

Romeo and Juliet? The Crucifixion of Christ? Buddha? The Pyramids? Cavemen?

www.thirdwayblog.com
 
2012-12-25 07:48:50 PM  
www.5yaks.com
Because 4D is the future, duh...
 
2012-12-25 07:49:21 PM  
The only use of 3D I've liked was Prometheus. It was generally subtle, enhancing the sense of depth -- so it worked in tandem with the photography and choice of lenses. Often you didn't even notice it.

I was not impressed with Avatar in 3D. To much of shoving objects in the foreground to accentuate a sense of depth.

As for repertoire films converted to 3D, I had a free ticket for Phantom Menace last year and thought it was terrible (the movie as well). With the exception of the pod race, the conversion seemed to screw with the brightness and contrast, and all of the digital backgrounds came out looking flat.
 
2012-12-25 07:51:40 PM  

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.


qu? havent been to rotten tomatoes in years, therefore not sure what you are gibbering about..
 
2012-12-25 07:57:24 PM  

gaspode: Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.

qu? havent been to rotten tomatoes in years, therefore not sure what you are gibbering about..


ahh the homeless have wifi at the shelter and they are running it hard on fark

 
2012-12-25 07:58:53 PM  

neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.


4k on a 50" TV is going to be a waste; on 80+" you'll notice a difference.

But there are several issues with 80+" TVs and 4k.

1) Price: the cheapest is $20k. It's going to be years until these things drop under $5k. Flat screen TV prices have fallen so low that consumers expect 40" to 50" to cost under $1k. So even when these 4k TVs drop to sub $2.5k, they're going to have to compete with dirt cheap 1080p.
2) Practically speaking, how many people really have space for an 80" TV?
3) Content: Cable TV and Satellite bandwidth can barely handle 1080p -- a lot of compression is applied. Accommodating 4k data is a huge jump. This is the same deal with removable media. A feature length film in 4k *with compression* is going to be hundreds of gigabytes. Someone is going to need to figure out a way to add a bunch of additional layers to a blu-ray disc, movies will have to be split across multiple discs, or a new optical storage medium will need to be invented.
 
2012-12-25 08:03:38 PM  

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.


LAWL. The movie sucked hard. Just because it made a money doesn't mean it is good. It just means people are stupid.
 
2012-12-25 08:05:06 PM  
Current 3D cinema tech:

1) Looks nothing like natural human-vision 3D, but like a pop-up book.

2) Is too dark and desaturated.

3) Makes people who don't wear glassed think about nothing but that they don't wear glasses for 2 hours.


3D is the future of film, but in 20 years when all this points are solved.


(we're like 1950/60s films were with magenta/cyan 3D ... a fad, because it's not ready yet)
 
2012-12-25 08:05:36 PM  
neongoats: The current tech isn't fundamentally different from cheesy 70s and 80s 3d.

IMO, the current tech (on the TV side) has a better home in the gaming industry.

Double the refresh rate, and show each person the opposite frames == co-op or vs gaming on one TV set where each person sees the entire television.

// hell, back when my buds and I were all in the same state, we were playing 4 people on two xboxes networked together. I was a PC gamer back then, but halo brought together the PC and non PC folks.
 
2012-12-25 08:06:14 PM  
Avatar sucked.
 
2012-12-25 08:07:59 PM  

miniflea: I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.



If you flick off your glasses during The Hobbit, you see how awfully dark and desaturated the viewing experience is. People who saw non-3D Hobbit saw a bright, kid-perfect palette. 3D folk saw a dark gloomy mess.
 
2012-12-25 08:09:36 PM  
I have strabismus. This 3d movie crizznap is overrated.
 
2012-12-25 08:10:50 PM  

themindiswatching: JeffMD: Anyone who thinks 3d suck and hope it dies prolly thought the same of bluray, dvd.

BluRay and DVD are dying, though. See: iTunes Store, Google Play.


Will not happen. Until wireless data rates explode and become dirt cheap, there will still be the desire to have the movie on a unit that can be easily transported to devices that are not online or do not conform to other copy protections.. cases in point;.

a) there will be many people who simply do not want to mess with having movies brought to their home network and trying to get all networked devices to talk to each other in order to view said movies. The majority of players don't even support networked movie playback and the consoles require a lot of configurations and software to get it up and running. The software used has actually been around for many years now which gives a good example how we have not made much progress on networking movie playback through out the house at the PC level.

b) movies downloaded through legit means and thus copy protected are generally not going to be usable on more then the owners home network. Bluray ownership resides on the disc and so it can be played anywhere.

c) Some devices do not network well, or are in environments that are not networked. The majority of automobile setups are not online and play movies only through disc. There will also be situations where there are a lot of people, and a lot of players that share a library of media.

d) I would put forth a mediums life span ahead of any copyright protection methods life span any day. We have seen the death of vhs, and while dvd video may be on its way out, dvd as a disc medium will still continue to hang around. It is still my medium of choice for recordable media (admitedly player prices are good..media prices need to fall more). I can't remember how many DRM services have failed and the resulting drm protected medium has become unusable.

Also as someone noticed above, 3d is pretty much one many or most high end TV sets. Active shutter 3d is NOT hard to build into a set with a quality and fast LCD panel.

Like I said before, I am not really impressed with hollywood movies of which most convert 2d to 3d, but I have rarly failed to impress anyone when showing them my 3d image collection on my phone.
 
2012-12-25 08:11:42 PM  

fusillade762: Jon iz teh kewl: what about 4D MOOVIES!!

I'm still waiting for Smell-o-Vision to make a comeback.


John Waters did it for "Polyester," and the smells were just as delightfully tasteless and rude as you can imagine.
farm1.static.flickr.com

/Has the same scratchcard from the NYC premiere, 70s era, and the odors are still just as stinky today.
 
2012-12-25 08:12:03 PM  
The 3D attempt in Harry Potter annoyed me. I went to see it in 2D and there were (non-action) shots that were clearly designed only so that 3D could be used on them. I presume this is so audiences only felt 90% ripped off paying for 3D instead of 100% ripped off.

For example, one of the scenes in the bedroom of the cottage, where they pan around the bed at below head-height. Clearly that shot was set up by someone saying "crap, we need more 3D shots".

Gah.
 
2012-12-25 08:12:55 PM  
Light 3D in animation: yes
Heavy 3D in a film: no


/watched Avatar on a flatscreen tv, loved it
 
2012-12-25 08:13:21 PM  
Good 3D is good.

Bad 3D is bad.
 
2012-12-25 08:13:28 PM  

verbaltoxin: Avatar suckedNickelback sucks.


ftfy

same argument..

see, it's a matter of taste really...
just because something makes a bajillion dollars doesn't make it good.

they sell billions of urinal pucks every day and you don't see people going on about that do you....wait...what i meant was....
 
2012-12-25 08:15:09 PM  

FitzShivering: Good 3D with guns is good.

Bad 3D with guns is bad.


now if only they had 3d in all the schools!
 
2012-12-25 08:15:12 PM  

twiztedjustin: Light 3D in animation: yes
Heavy 3D in a film: no


/watched Avatar on a flatscreen tv, loved it



Avatar's the only film I've ever seen in 3D and thought it "worked", probably because it's massively over saturated and have huge light/dark contrast.
 
2012-12-25 08:16:26 PM  

milsorgen: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

I'm having trouble computing Avatar and awesome in the same sentence.


/Seriously
//that movie was literally garbage
///yes i was drunk when i watched, shouldn't that reinforce my point?


Not really, in my experience most films seem pretty bad when drunk. Since I figured that out I never get drunk before movies. A couple beers at the most now.

Now if you were stoned and said that, on the other hand..
 
2012-12-25 08:18:29 PM  
3 D costs more and these days many of them aren't visually "popping" the images, instead 3 D seems to mean some kind of depth/contrast quality.

Journey to the Center of the earth was in image popping 3 D and totally worth it though.
 
2012-12-25 08:19:28 PM  

jake_lex: From TFA:

"The next big test may be Baz Luhrman's version of The Great Gatsby, due for release in May and starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It doesn't seem like a natural fit for 3D, but Luhrmann's a very stylistic director and he may make it work."

That sounds like that could be the biggest disaster in film history.


Sounds like it, but if anyone can pull it off, DiCaprio probably can. Every film I thought would suck goat ass with him in it, actually hasn't been that bad.

The problem with 3D is that, as I understand it, it requires the viewer to use correctable binocular vision to experience the effects.

That's great.

What happens if you don't HAVE correctable binocular vision though?

I wouldn't pay to see a 3D flick now, let alone if I had FUBAR vision.
 
2012-12-25 08:20:23 PM  
The Hobbit sucked.

it sucked more in 3D

Avatar also sucked.

Star Wars sucked and will suck more in 3D.

Jaws was great.
 
2012-12-25 08:23:03 PM  
The only 3-D effect that I liked was from the Viewmaster toy stereoscopic viewer, where you inserted this disk of tiny slides and pushed a lever to rotate from image to image.

I recall being absolutely fascinated with the thing back when I was a kid. The images were usually cartoon characters, seemingly so real that you could reach out and pick them up. Later 3-D effects, used in comic books and films, requiring the wearing of the 'special' glasses was nothing like that darn little toy.

It's kind of like comparing a laser holographic image to those flat, plastic 'holograms' they stick on credit cards, key chains and everything else and actually aren't holograms.

BTW. If you look at a blank white wall and cover one eye and relax, then switch eyes, you'll notice that one eye see's predominately blue and the other, red. Kind of interesting, especially since we get our '3-D' vision from the position of our eyes, not necessary the colors.
 
2012-12-25 08:23:40 PM  
Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.
 
2012-12-25 08:28:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Most homes seem to top off on screen size between 50"-60" and viewing distances of around 10' or so, which makes any additional resolution above 1080p essentially wasted. Instead of packing in more pixels I'd like to see TV makers concentrate on improving black levels, reducing motion blur and SOE, improving color accuracy, and reducing input lag.


The scale of that graph was poorly chosen. 95% of the time you only need the information contained in the bottom left quarter, and scaling it to twice that size in both dimensions makes it more difficult to examine for the smaller numbers.
 
2012-12-25 08:29:34 PM  
It's funny; I saw exactly what was good and bad with Avatar.  Yes the visuals were great, but that movie was trying to top  Casablanca for most cliches used in one film.

And as for the rest...Phantom Menace 3D says everything you need to know about 90% of 3D out there.  Making a movie 3D will never improve the storyline if the storyline sucks.  And it will never make me pay extra to see it, either.
 
2012-12-25 08:31:19 PM  
The Hobbit looked pretty damn well in 3D, especially in 48 fps with little to no flicker. Almost purely atmospheric, with only a few things that jump at the audience. Like that pinecone. If you saw it, you know the one. Made me flinch.

3D in general doesn't bother me, nor does it give me a headache. I wonder if it affects those who are prone to migraines (which my family is, the gene luckily skipped over me). If that is the case, then maybe it's because of the flicker related to frame-rate, which 3D can magnify in a way.
 
2012-12-25 08:32:40 PM  

clutchcargo2002: LAWL. The movie sucked hard. Just because it made a money doesn't mean it is good. It just means people are stupid.


I never said it was good. It's ok, but it doesnt suck hard. It's a solid 3 out of 4 star movie. Ebert gave it 4 stars. I think its ok, about 30 min. too long. Its Dances with Wolves in space. No more hackneyed than that movie (also a four star movie according to Ebert.)

I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose...which it fulfilled exquisitely.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-25 08:34:38 PM  
3D is tough... Within months of cuts, closeups, irising in (today's zoom before zoom lenses existed), panning, changing focus areas, color, sound, widescreen, and other techincal innovations, the artists in the filmmaking community were creating films which, while they might have been great without the tech wizardry, became better because of the tech magic. Yet, even though 3D has been used in films for six decades, it remains a rare moment where the art overcomes the drawbacks. Eyes focussed on the fixed screen while the parallax gives a 3D effect give too many people massive headaches, the image is darker, the unpleasantness of the glasses, and other problems are difficult to justify the glories of 3D. I suspect that most 3D films will be special effects spectaculars, and it will not be used for many "art" films.

The technical advancements which have lasted the best are those which became unobtrusive while adding to the cinematic experience. 3D hasn't done it... and without the glasses, I suspect it never will.
 
2012-12-25 08:34:48 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.


next time aim for the producers desk
 
2012-12-25 08:36:05 PM  

Haliburton Cummings:
qu? havent been to rotten tomatoes in years, therefore not sure what you are gibbering about..

ahh the homeless have wifi at the shelter and they are running it hard on fark


Im in full lolwut mode. maybe its the really nice cheese I ate for lunch.
 
2012-12-25 08:37:06 PM  

gaspode: Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.

I know right, and maccas is the best food in the world for the same reason.

nozzle

Hey you dont like the movie, no problem, but dont come in like you're farking Cecil B Demille criticizing a movie that made a billion dollars or so, especially when you just lifted everyfarking thing you said off Rotten Tomatoes.

qu? havent been to rotten tomatoes in years, therefore not sure what you are gibbering about..


You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.
 
2012-12-25 08:38:00 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


We bought one. 65 inch. Have yet to watch a 3D movie on it though. The 3D technology makes the regular stuff look a *lot* better

As I recall, it didn't cost that much more. Maybe they had a sale on.
 
2012-12-25 08:39:31 PM  
Man. A lot of people are wearing onions on their belt in this thread.

Most movies are shiat whether they're in 3D or not. So sucky movies are no reason to dump on a new format.

FTFA: "3D is antithetical to storytelling, where immersion in character is the goal. It constantly reminds you you're watching a screen - and it completely prevents emotional involvement. Natural human vision bears no resemblance to 3D in the cinema."

Of all the reasons to shiat on 3D, this is about the dumbest I've ever heard.
 
2012-12-25 08:43:26 PM  
Maybe if HollyWEIRD would write, produce and deliver a good movie in 3d, people would pay the premium to see it? Just because you have things flying around toward you, and away from you just for the effect of 3d, if the story SUCKS, why bother? And, for a lot of people who are confined to wearing glasses, the current crop of 3d "sunglasses, doesn't cut it. I've seen one, and the others I've seen in regular mode, wouldn't be worth the EXTRA they charge for 3d.
 
2012-12-25 08:44:45 PM  

GoodHomer: Man. A lot of people are wearing onions on their belt in this thread.


It's not like 3D is some newfangled technology.
 
2012-12-25 08:45:27 PM  
p51d007: HollyWEIRD

Are you for real?
 
2012-12-25 08:47:39 PM  
Pay money to get a migraine? BEST IDEA EVER!!

/still haven't seen Avatar
//or Titanic
 
2012-12-25 08:51:59 PM  

Mad_Radhu: TuteTibiImperes: I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D. The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D. I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all. I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming. Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey

Last year, I got a good deal on a Samsung 55" 8000 series and basically bought it for the panel quality, with the 3D as a bonus. If you aren't paying for the glasses, it probably doesn't add that much to the cost of the set. They just have to add a special mode into the display hardware that interleaved the left frames, and some sort of sync system for the glasses (either IR or Bluetooth) which isn't terribly expensive to implement. I'm more annoyed that every high end HDTV includes a terrible smart TV system that is crap compared to the media streaming on every box you'd expect to have plugged into that TV (Xbox, Wii U, PS3, Apple TV, Roku, Blu-ray player, etc), which I'm paying for but never use. At least the 3D is nice for games like Super Stardust, Wipeout, and Arkham City that use it to good effect.


I have a front projection setup, since it was way cheaper than flatscreens. With a 100" screen and 20-20 vision the pixels cannot be seen from the couch even with my old 720p projector. For those of us who grew up with analogue TV the display also looks more natural than a flatscreen.

When it died I ended up getting a 3d one since I like the extra power for daytime viewing but I hate gimmicky 3d.

The issue with it is that it doesn't allow for the way our vision system is vertically integrated: our 3d processing uses parallax and focal distance, whereas the image is on a flat surface.

True 3d will require direct retina beaming which is at least 5 years from being ready for mass production.
 
2012-12-25 08:52:15 PM  
Madbassist1: I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose

Something that completes it's purpose is known as "successful", it's a successful movie, doesn't mean it's a "good" movie.

// I don't even know what movie is being discussed, I just don't like the connotations of linguistics getting perverted to suit someone's agenda.

// "Good" is too generic of an adjective to stand by itself without giving it a context.
 
2012-12-25 08:57:01 PM  
Tron in IMAX 3D cured my hangover.
 
2012-12-25 08:59:34 PM  

lordargent: Madbassist1: I am one of the people who tend to take the viewpoint that its a good movie because it made a billion dollars, billion dollars, because biatch all you want, that was the movie's purpose

Something that completes it's purpose is known as "successful", it's a successful movie, doesn't mean it's a "good" movie.

// I don't even know what movie is being discussed, I just don't like the connotations of linguistics getting perverted to suit someone's agenda.

// "Good" is too generic of an adjective to stand by itself without giving it a context.


you're a poopyhead.


and correct, of course
 
2012-12-25 09:01:09 PM  
Intelligently used or not, the most common forms of 3D glasses give me a terrible headache.
 
2012-12-25 09:02:26 PM  

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.


Lol...only film I've come close to puking in, I had to go out to the lobby and walk around for five minutes halfway through.
 
2012-12-25 09:06:55 PM  
I loved the use of 3D in Avatar, Prometheus, and The Hobbit; environments look amazing. The other ones I've seen I would have rather watched in 2D. But I will continue to support it when done well, my only gripe is that seeing the frames of the glasses in my peripheral vision can occasionally be annoying.
 
2012-12-25 09:08:29 PM  

Madbassist1: Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more

Except that it's the highest grossing movie ever made. So that's something more...maybe. Douche.


Can you quote it at all?
 
2012-12-25 09:09:40 PM  

Madbassist1:

You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.


I'm far too lazy for that. If you were trolling or made some devastatingly clever meta-joke or something then I hope you enjoyed it.
 
2012-12-25 09:12:28 PM  

gaspode: Madbassist1:

You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.

I'm far too lazy for that. If you were trolling or made some devastatingly clever meta-joke or something then I hope you enjoyed it.


nah you just jumped in in the middle of a comment wherein I was referring to (and quoting) someone else. I don't know what a meta-joke is. I like the word though. I may try to work it into a conversation. Meta-joke. Oh, i see. You were making a meta-joke.
 
2012-12-25 09:13:32 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?


If you don't think every home is going to have a 3-D printer in twenty years, you're farking retarded.
 
2012-12-25 09:15:04 PM  

DrGunsforHands: Can you quote it at all?


"Nature good. Military bad."
 
2012-12-25 09:17:02 PM  
Three Dees and seven years ago...before it was cool

api.ning.com
 
2012-12-25 09:19:07 PM  
Maybe it's a warning. We should slow down. The Holy Father has already admonished us that technology and science are interfering in our relationship with God. We should stop all this nonsense and go back to trusting and believing it Him. He will show us the way.
 
2012-12-25 09:19:07 PM  

Madbassist1: gaspode: Madbassist1:

You're an idiot. Think about it for a while, and see if you can figure out why I think so.

I'm far too lazy for that. If you were trolling or made some devastatingly clever meta-joke or something then I hope you enjoyed it.

nah you just jumped in in the middle of a comment wherein I was referring to (and quoting) someone else. I don't know what a meta-joke is. I like the word though. I may try to work it into a conversation. Meta-joke. Oh, i see. You were making a meta-joke.


Oh hey if I answered someone else's post by answering yours then I genuinely feel like a fool. Ill take your word for it as the scroll-bar is a loooong mouse-movement away over there.
 
2012-12-25 09:22:07 PM  

assjuice: I just downloaded 3dtv.stl and am about to 3d print my first 3d tv.


Yeah well, I still jerk off manually.
 
2012-12-25 09:23:26 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Summer Glau's Love Slave: Shaky cam flicks are the nausea makers.

/I puked so damned hard during Cloverfield.
//Got it all over the place.

Lol...only film I've come close to puking in, I had to go out to the lobby and walk around for five minutes halfway through.


Yea I go suckered into seeing it on the big screen and about yarfed all over the first 3 rows, almost wished I had. Just absolutely worthless and puke inducing crap.
and dont even get me started on the shakey cam aspect of it either....


There are no good 3d movies. Only movies some of you are trying to justify wasting your time on that you secretly deeply regret.
 
2012-12-25 09:25:25 PM  

thornhill: neongoats: TuteTibiImperes: litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...

I've been looking at getting a new TV recently, and I don't really give a crap about 3D.  The problem is that the best sets that have the other features I want also include 3D.  I don't know how much it actually adds to the price, but it's a bit annoying, and isn't a selling point to me at all.  I'd much rather see things that actually improve picture quality be pushed out to more moderately priced sets like LED/LCD sets with full array backlighting and local dimming.  Right now that's only available on the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR line, and both are pretty pricey.

At this point I'll just wait to see what's announced at CES in January.  The new 4K buzz is another problem - there are no broadcasts at that resolution, there's little recorded material available at that resolution, and the only way to play material at that resolution at home is via a hard disk based media server.  On top of that 4K doesn't really add anything for the screen sizes and typical viewing distances in most homes.  I'm hoping this year OLED or Sony's Crystal LED tech are released at somewhat affordable prices.

I mean, pretty much all the things you say about 4k or uHD were said nearly verbatim about 1080p 15 years ago. Yeah, getting a 4k set next week would probably be a waste, but it's the direction things will go. I think a tv sized retina display would be lovely to watch.

4k on a 50" TV is going to be a waste; on 80+" you'll notice a difference.

But there are several issues with 80+" TVs and 4k.

1) Price: the cheapest is $20k. It's going to be years until these things drop under $5k. Flat screen TV prices have fallen so low that consumers expect 40" to 50" to cost under $1k. So even when these 4k TVs drop to sub $2.5k, they're going to have to compete with dirt cheap 1080p.
2) Practically speaking, how many people really have space for an 80" TV?
3) Content: Cable TV and Satellite bandwidth can ...


Again, you are citing things that were the exact "problems" with 1080p when it was being conceived and first hitting the market. Then sports jumped in because football fans will pay anything to see grass stains on a 7 foot tall guys ass in higher detail, and porn saw that and thought it was cool and went full bore HD.

All the little formulas and charts about room size and viewing distance, seriously? The tech will progress until displays are photorealistic at any viewing distance. I think the angst about this is silly, like people thought 1080p is some kind of plateau that can never be surmounted, so now you can stop buying TVs forever.
 
2012-12-25 09:30:31 PM  

miniflea: I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.


I saw The Hobbit in 3D HFR, and I was actually impressed. There were a few gimmicky bits (especially in the "falling bridge" segment everyone biatches about), but for the most part I found the 3D actually helped tell the story.

I also hate wearing the 3D glasses over my own prescription lenses, but I can deal. What REALLY impressed me about the 3D in The Hobbit was the simple fact that I left the theater without a headache. Normally, a 3D movie gives me a decent start on a migraine. The Hobbit? Not even a twinge. I don't know how they did it, but I hope P.J. teaches the trick to some other filmmakers.

Before that, the last 3D movie I went to see was Avatar. While I did enjoy it, I was regretting it by the time I got home. HFR was the only reason I went with 3D on The Hobbit... After all the hype on both sides of that issue, I wanted to see and decide for myself. If it had been possible to watch 2D HFR, that's what I would have done.

/IMO, big thumbs up on the HFR
//though it does need some work in up-close action sequences
///amazing for distance shots, even those including action
 
2012-12-25 09:34:03 PM  
3D in general doesn't bother me, nor does it give me a headache. I wonder if it affects those who are prone to migraines (which my family is, the gene luckily skipped over me). If that is the case, then maybe it's because of the flicker related to frame-rate, which 3D can magnify in a way.

I get headaches from 3D and I don't get migraine. The issue is more of the amount of work needed by some viewers to keep things in focus. Look at the end of your nose, now consider doing it for 2 1/2 hours. Also, only the area directly in front of me is in focus, the rest is blurry.

Movies will evolve into 3D experiences when:
a) no glasses are needed
b) they can figure out how to do it without giving people headaches
 
2012-12-25 09:36:20 PM  
3D, or as I like to call it, "make the picture dark and fuzzy." First time I went to a 3D flick was CaptainEO at Disneyland. The second was Tron Legacy. The only thing in Tr2n that was at all cool in 3D was the castle logo at the start of the flick. I can't even remember what I saw in 3d after that, but I know it's the last one I ever plan to see.
 
2012-12-25 09:37:22 PM  
Plot/content trumps technical quality every time. I find myself attracted to Bollywood and other foreign films because they haven't forgotten this. Good story lines, good acting. Technical varies, but I'd rather watch a superior movie in B&W @ 240 lines (VHS) than some crap like Spice World @ 4K 3D with the best equipment in the world.
 
2012-12-25 09:38:41 PM  

themindiswatching: Wait, what's wrong with 3D printing?

/must have missed a few threads


A certain crankypants user appears in almost every "Geek tab" thread with the same old crankypants complaints: 3D printing sucks, space sucks, science R&D sucks.

The only thing he or she is for, is recycling. More specifically: recycling the same lame crankypants complaints about 3D printing, space, and science R&D, in just about every thread, regardless of the context.
 
2012-12-25 09:43:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Quantum Apostrophe: And maybe they can retire 3D printing hype sometime this week while they're at it?

The people who are heralding them as some kind of Star Trek-like replicators are misinformed, sensationalist, or both.  For modeling, rapid prototyping, or just playing around to make some cool stuff though they're pretty nifty.


Yes, it is awesome. I talked to an engineer about his cool new idea. By the next day, he had a plastic prototype in hand thanks to 3D printing. For guys like him, 3D printing is accelerating the design process in fantastic ways.
 
2012-12-25 09:45:11 PM  
Just back from The Hobbit in Real3d and was glad to see the film this was. My only aggravations were those gimmicky spots where rubble and such was purposefully hurled towards the audience. When used early, though, especially in Bag End, the technology worked wonderfully. We will never feel involved in those massive action sequences, where people expect the focus of 3d, but those slower scenes with wonderful art on the sets and characters can benefit.
 
2012-12-25 09:50:44 PM  
I really hope not. I love 3D. There's certainly no way I'll ever own a 2D TV again after getting a 3D one. They just need to keep improving the technology and researching what makes it unpalatable for some people.

We see everything else in 3D, why blind half of our vision when we're watching movies and gaming?
 
2012-12-25 09:53:46 PM  
The first film I saw in 3D was Avatar, and it was the last. I got a near-migraine level headache and I swore never again would I endure that torture. It never really looked real to me, it was vaguely three dimensional in some scenes and totally off in others. It could have been the constantly varying scale/field of depth, I don't know. All I do know is that I found it to be incredibly distracting, and an annoyance worse than bad focus or pixellation.

By the end of the movie I was watching through one eye to try to minimize the headache I was experiencing. I went home, took a codeine pill and hoped I'd feel better in the morning.

If the Movie is showing in 3D, I will not go and see it. It's 2D or don't waste my time. I don't need to feel like I am developing a brain tumor while watching a movie all because some studio nitwit thinks that it's a "cool" special effect.
 
2012-12-25 09:55:13 PM  

Sean M: Plot/content trumps technical quality every time. I find myself attracted to Bollywood and other foreign films because they haven't forgotten this. Good story lines, good acting. Technical varies, but I'd rather watch a superior movie in B&W @ 240 lines (VHS) than some crap like Spice World @ 4K 3D with the best equipment in the world.


Bollywood? Those movies suck and you know it. The only reason for those is the dance numbers where you can watch a fine piece of azz.

I think you are late for your showing at the Sundance film festival or was it Cannes?
 
2012-12-25 09:55:15 PM  

Optimus Primate: The Hobbit in HFR (48fps) 3D was pretty incredible. Seen it twice in that format. I did have issues with the characters looking like they were walking a little quickly, a problem with the new tech. It was better on the 2nd viewing though.

I was also on LSD for my second HFR 3D screening, so that increased the awe factor by about ten.


When does Sony plan on releasing this LSD technology in home televisions?

/hope you don't need lame glasses.
 
2012-12-25 09:56:27 PM  

Ikahoshi: The first film I saw in 3D was Avatar, and it was the last. I got a near-migraine level headache and I swore never again would I endure that torture. It never really looked real to me, it was vaguely three dimensional in some scenes and totally off in others. It could have been the constantly varying scale/field of depth, I don't know. All I do know is that I found it to be incredibly distracting, and an annoyance worse than bad focus or pixellation.


Same here. My brain turns it off. By the time its over, I've forgotten the movie was in 3D
 
2012-12-25 09:56:59 PM  

StopLurkListen: space sucks


Space doesn't suck. NASA sucks at getting funding and releasing news. But those two facts go hand in hand. If NASA was good at PR, they'd have more men and money than the Pentagon.

As for 3D printing, it's impossible to say. It's a fabricator. You could also call it a lamination modeler or LM, I guess. That's also easier to say. But calling it a 3D printer is a mouthful. It ruins the flow of sentences.

Science R&D? When was the last time someone wrote a paper about quantum mathematics? 10 seconds ago? When was the last time someone came up with a viable propulsion system for converting a lambo to a vector thrust aircraft? Never? It's called priorities.
 
2012-12-25 09:58:01 PM  
The 3d movies give myself and everyone i know headaches.

We dont go to them anymore.
 
2012-12-25 09:58:34 PM  

Jarhead_h: 3D, or as I like to call it, "make the picture dark and fuzzy." First time I went to a 3D flick was CaptainEO at Disneyland. The second was Tron Legacy. The only thing in Tr2n that was at all cool in 3D was the castle logo at the start of the flick. I can't even remember what I saw in 3d after that, but I know it's the last one I ever plan to see.


I am not a fan of 3D, but I do like that they split Tron 2 as both a 2D and a 3D movie, much like how the Wizard of Oz was split between black & white and color. Yeah, the 3D effects were decidedly "meh," but I like what they were trying to do.
 
2012-12-25 10:05:51 PM  
I can't see the 3D effect anyway, so I'm not too interested in paying more to see a 3D movie.
 
2012-12-25 10:06:36 PM  
If they could make 3D movies glasses free and the same price, they might just become popular.

I don't get a headache, but my wallet and enjoyment do.
 
2012-12-25 10:09:39 PM  
I like 3D. My LG LED TV is passive 3d and works great. ESPN3d is awesome, plus no commercials, just two minutes of cool 3d highlights. Just wish there was more programming.
 
2012-12-25 10:22:28 PM  

imsol: Dredd 3D was the best use of 3D ive seen so far, foreground background seperation, and mostly slow-mos.

Looked fkin brilliant.

Avatar might have made alot of money, but it is complete crap.

If you like Avatar, you are pathetic. shiat story, way too long, and all round bad.
I get it you like crap predictable stories that explain every plot device to come in the first 30 mins.

Just one big CGI 3D ad.


Unobtanium. Please.


Right? I mean giant blue cat people on a jungle planet who ride around on flying lizards and you focus on an element that doesn't really exist.
 
2012-12-25 10:35:20 PM  
Maybe it's just people on the internet, but since 3D often makes more than 2D (which also assumes they felt it was worth the premium) then there's still a lot of people who like the format.

Personally I'm a fan of 3D. I generally always pick it, never have headaches or anything, never find the glasses uncomfortable over my prescription glasses, and don't understand these arguements over the merits of 3D being tied to a movie plot (ie Avatar).
 
2012-12-25 10:36:51 PM  

pldiguanaman: I love 3D including Avatar and the new Hobbit. The "naysayers" can go along with the people biatching about "color" being a "gimmick" and how sound really "ruins" and picture and is annoying. The more immersive they can make the movies the better. The rest of you can go rot with your 2D and mono sound and other crappola from the past.


Immersive in  what, the nerdy glee as you realize there's slightly more depth between foreground and background and start trying to figure out the exact mechanics involved? Because I really can't think of anything more movie-wrecking than sitting around wearing glasses for nothing.
 
2012-12-25 10:44:24 PM  

NotARocketScientist:

Movies will evolve into 3D experiences when:
a) no glasses are needed
b) they can figure out how to do it without giving people headaches


kinda like sex with your wife then?
 
2012-12-25 10:45:32 PM  

GoodHomer: Man. A lot of people are wearing onions on their belt in this thread.

Most movies are shiat whether they're in 3D or not. So sucky movies are no reason to dump on a new format.

FTFA: "3D is antithetical to storytelling, where immersion in character is the goal. It constantly reminds you you're watching a screen - and it completely prevents emotional involvement. Natural human vision bears no resemblance to 3D in the cinema."

Of all the reasons to shiat on 3D, this is about the dumbest I've ever heard.


It was exceedingly dumb and said without trace of irony as though 2d moving pictures weren't as much a gimmick. How about 'train comes @camera' or 'guy shoots @ camera, two old classics?
 
2012-12-25 10:46:21 PM  
also, wearing glasses. considering how many do,is it so hard to provide the clip on sunglassses sort of thing?
 
2012-12-25 10:47:05 PM  
Wow. This article is just one big steaming pile of journalistic fail. It asks the question "has 3D had its day?" and then, to answer the question, talks only to a very few industry types who offer nothing but their opinions. There is absolutely nothing in the article to give the reader any kind of context other than a miserable mention of Avatar. No facts, no numbers, no nothing. For all we know, 3D is setting box office records. There certainly doesn't seem to be a downturn in the number of movies being offered in 3D...heck studios are going back and remaking legacy movies in 3D, for crying out loud. I just saw a poster for a 3D version of the original Jurassic Park that's coming soon.

But, the article is done by the British and they're so "cultured" and "knowledgeable" so I guess that makes it all ok.
 
2012-12-25 10:48:32 PM  

Molavian: Right? I mean giant blue cat people on a jungle planet who ride around on flying lizards and you focus on an element that doesn't really exist.


Not to mention real time wireless up-links to the body. I could out fence any freakin' robo-body with a time delay of even half a second. With a cat's reflexes? John Sully shoulda been mince.

Not to mention that if the body collapses without a signal, but the mountains interfere with signals, why wasn't the body all jerky and unreliable when they were in the mountians.

Also if you're gonna make Pern the Movie, just make Pern the Movie. We didn't need blue cat people and some farkin' RL Ermie Parody.
 
2012-12-25 10:48:36 PM  

Sean M: Plot/content trumps technical quality every time. I find myself attracted to Bollywood and other foreign films because they haven't forgotten this. Good story lines, good acting. Technical varies, but I'd rather watch a superior movie in B&W @ 240 lines (VHS) than some crap like Spice World @ 4K 3D with the best equipment in the world.


*joker laugh*
 
2012-12-25 10:55:35 PM  
what about 3d printing?
 
2012-12-25 10:58:14 PM  
3D movies? at home? Why would I do that? Stupid market angle and even stupider tech angle.

/Carry on.
 
2012-12-25 11:01:47 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.


I double-puked in that movie.

I had gone and had a big steak dinner with wine and a martini prior to the movie. The 3D didn't help and I painted the seats next to me in protein colors before walking out to the men's room. Then made a rainbow yawn onto the toilet seat.

I dinner was the main factor, to be sure, but the 3D didn't help one bit.
 
2012-12-25 11:07:27 PM  

doglover: StopLurkListen: space sucks

Space doesn't suck. NASA sucks at getting funding and releasing news. But those two facts go hand in hand. If NASA was good at PR, they'd have more men and money than the Pentagon.

As for 3D printing, it's impossible to say. It's a fabricator. You could also call it a lamination modeler or LM, I guess. That's also easier to say. But calling it a 3D printer is a mouthful. It ruins the flow of sentences.

Science R&D? When was the last time someone wrote a paper about quantum mathematics? 10 seconds ago? When was the last time someone came up with a viable propulsion system for converting a lambo to a vector thrust aircraft? Never? It's called priorities.


I don't necessarily agree that the description "3d printer" is difficult to say, but "Rapid Prototyping Machine" is the technically correct term. "3d printer" is a less precise term. Not that it is any easier to say.
 
2012-12-25 11:11:05 PM  

Alonjar: The 3d movies give myself and everyone i know headaches.
We dont go to them anymore.


It's funny. In my family absolutely everybody loves it. And all of my friends..I've never heard a single complaint about headaches.
It's funny how it can have such a different effect on people.

/And I don't mind wearing the glasses any more than I mind wearing shoes.
 
2012-12-25 11:11:51 PM  
I see all these "ZOMG my eyes bleed and I vomit terribly!1" posts on the internet, but have yet to see a single person in real life complain of nausea from a 3D movie. "Insane nausea" like people are laying in aisles vomiting all over each other. Grow up, submittard.

I enjoy 3D movies, the price difference is only $2 (can't afford that?), and the viewing experience is much more enjoyable. Up in 3D was spectacular, on top of an already decent movie it really shined. It wasnt gimmicky or special FX-y, it was stunning visual appeal that made me actually analyze each vivid backdrop in so many scenes. Some movies are just whatever, but some are amazing in 3D. If you can't ever realize this because you experience stomach discomfort and need to leave the theater instead, you are missing out on a damn good thing.

It sucks that you dont enjoy it, but for the rest of us it's freaking awesome when done correctly. It's been around enough years that I'm optimistic about it sticking around. I just hope more movies utilize the power of 3D correctly, instead of gimmicking it in like many have. A 3D TV is my next purchase actually, with so many good games out supporting 3D nowadays as well it's even more of a win.
 
2012-12-25 11:13:59 PM  

irreverend mother: also, wearing glasses. considering how many do,is it so hard to provide the clip on sunglassses sort of thing?


I've got a pair of clip-ons that I bought at the theater for $2.50.
 
2012-12-25 11:16:13 PM  

Alonjar: The 3d movies give myself and everyone i know headaches.

We dont go to them anymore.



You must hang out with some real pussies. Do you also all vomit on the kiddie coaster at the fair? Do those light beers just get your widdle tummies all twisted up?

Where are you people in real life?
 
2012-12-25 11:16:55 PM  

Gleeman: Wadded Beef: Kramer vs. Kramer in 3D was the shiznit.

The 3D re-release of Caddy Shack makes the clubs pop right out of the screen!

My Dinner with Andre

in 3D was farking intense.
 
2012-12-25 11:19:23 PM  

m3000: Maybe it's just people on the internet, but since 3D often makes more than 2D (which also assumes they felt it was worth the premium) then there's still a lot of people who like the format.

Personally I'm a fan of 3D. I generally always pick it, never have headaches or anything, never find the glasses uncomfortable over my prescription glasses, and don't understand these arguements over the merits of 3D being tied to a movie plot (ie Avatar).



I knew someone with common sense was around in this thread.
 
2012-12-25 11:30:56 PM  
I got a great deal on a HD 3d TV, and would have bought it, regardlesss of the 3D. I got the 3D Blu Ray player, and thought it was pretty cool for a bit, but my eyes always felt kind of weird afterwards. Sort of like they itched, but couldn't scratch them properly. Now after opening Christmas gifts, I realized I have a couple 3D movies that have never even had the wrapping removed. Meh.
 
2012-12-25 11:31:38 PM  

litespeed74: Me laughs at all the people that bought 3d TV's...


My TV is 3D, but only because all of the top of the line models are, not because I wanted a 3D TV. Pretty much any decent TV over 42 inches is going to be 3D.
 
2012-12-25 11:31:45 PM  
^^**couple of movies from last Christmas***
 
2012-12-25 11:33:59 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more



Wow did Avatar rape your mom and piss in your cereal? If the 3D visuals are solid enough to distract record-breaking numbers of people from such unbearable movies, they must be some damn good visuals.

For as much whiny bullshiat we heard from pussies on the internet "ZOMG its Pocahontas/Dances With Wolfs/Schindlers List recycled!1" you would expect that the movie was the biggest flop to grace the screen since Gigle.

Instead, it was an ordinary movie propelled to record breaking heights by the skillful use of 3D imagery.
 
2012-12-25 11:35:20 PM  

dj245: I don't necessarily agree that the description "3d printer" is difficult to say,


It's not difficult to say. It's "more difficult than" fabricator, but still easy. It just has the cacophony of poor measure only those in whose souls poetry is well and truly dead can enjoy. Math kills language, language kills math. You can only learn so much of one before the other suffers. That's why scientists SUCK at naming things. They're so bad at it you could probably hire researchers by asking them to name a series of machines and hiring the people who apply the worst names according to a professional writer.
 
2012-12-25 11:42:30 PM  

miniflea: I saw The Hobbit in 3D, not because I wanted to but because the theater I wanted to go to has only one screen and they were playing it in 3D. I'm generally not a fan, doubly so of the increased ticket price, but it didn't really bother me this time around. Other than a few glaring things flying out of the screen, after a few minutes I completely forgot about the 3D at all.

I also wear glasses and yes, it is a royal pain in the ass to wear a second, poor fitting pair over the first.


If you forget that it's in 3D, that's proof that the 3D sucks.  The That being said, I'm a huge fan of Nvidia 3D vision for games.  I don't play Skrim, I live in it.
 
2012-12-25 11:48:39 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Gleeman: Wadded Beef: Kramer vs. Kramer in 3D was the shiznit.

The 3D re-release of Caddy Shack makes the clubs pop right out of the screen!

My Dinner with Andre in 3D was farking intense.


on blu ray no less...
 
2012-12-25 11:49:18 PM  
What's worse than a bad 3D movie is someone making douchy comments in support of some topic. I can't understand why a Farker has to act like a jerk because someone doesn't like what you do. Myself, I can enjoy a movie without 3D because it seems like a gimmick to make you pay more for a movie. I'm glad you enjoy 3D movies, but you act like like it's the best thing ever. Why would you care if someone calls Avatar a shaitty gimmicky movie? I await your irrational response typed out with tiny fists of rage.
 
2012-12-25 11:50:19 PM  

D_Evans45: m3000: Maybe it's just people on the internet, but since 3D often makes more than 2D (which also assumes they felt it was worth the premium) then there's still a lot of people who like the format.

Personally I'm a fan of 3D. I generally always pick it, never have headaches or anything, never find the glasses uncomfortable over my prescription glasses, and don't understand these arguements over the merits of 3D being tied to a movie plot (ie Avatar).


I knew someone with common sense was around in this thread.


i bet you liked White Knights in 3D too.

stop suckholing.
 
2012-12-25 11:53:12 PM  
Reading is 3d.
 
2012-12-25 11:54:48 PM  
They put damn near every movie in 3D. Not all movies need to be in 3D. Quality, not quantity Hollywood.
 
2012-12-25 11:55:27 PM  
90% of what 3D gets used for in movies is crap, because 90% of everything is crap.

Hate on Avatar as a film if you want. Yes, the plot was contrived, and the dialogue was mediocre. But it was fantastic visually, and the use of 3D in the theater was frankly amazing. Your hipster cynicism is unimpressive.

doglover: Also if you're gonna make Pern the Movie, just make Pern the Movie.


Let's see... Giant flying lizards being ridden? Check.
Insufferable 1-dimensional characters? Check.
Lots of promiscuity and group sex?... Damn you, James Cameron!
 
2012-12-25 11:56:39 PM  

skinink: What's worse than a bad 3D movie is someone making douchy comments in support of some topic. I can't understand why a Farker has to act like a jerk because someone doesn't like what you do. Myself, I can enjoy a movie without 3D because it seems like a gimmick to make you pay more for a movie. I'm glad you enjoy 3D movies, but you act like like it's the best thing ever. Why would you care if someone calls Avatar a shaitty gimmicky movie? I await your irrational response typed out with tiny fists of rage.


so much this

because these little cube farm experts get tired of filling out tax forms for the elderly all day at their wonderful jobs, they feel they need to explode all over the internet with their opinion.

see, these folks have never been in relationships because they don't understand the old "give and take" like when you discover that awful CD of your significant others the day before your big road trip.

it's why you have tea baggers and libtards...

mentally stunted people who can't form a line properly...

let them wave those little flags...let them sit alone at the party..it's what they do best.
 
2012-12-26 12:03:28 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: d_evans45:...

i bet you liked White Knights in 3D too.

stop suckholing.



I dont even get that reference. Why is it "suckholing" to enjoy 3d movies? It sucks that you personally experience eye discomfort, but most people don't get headaches. Why should the vast majority have to suffer because a bunch of whiny pussies on the internet have shiatty eyesight?

3D is amazing when incorporated properly into a movie. If you cant appreciate that, it sucks to be you.

/Seriously, sucks to be you
 
2012-12-26 12:06:08 AM  
A bit off topic but FTFA:

Torsten Hoffmann is a German who recently moved his 3DContent Blog website to Australia. From there he's following what he says is now the real growth in the 3D market: Asia, and especially China and South Korea

Why does it matter where he has his web site?
 
2012-12-26 12:22:30 AM  

themindiswatching: Quantum Apostrophe: themindiswatching: It's the breathless, uncritical gee-whiz hype I can't stand. And the tossing of every single machining process of the last few decades into the "3D printing" bin, and then thinking that the 300$ toy you bought is going to print a car or an Airbus in just a few weeks. Other than that, it's great.

Printing your own gun is possible now.


No, it's not. They printed the Reciever, which is the frame that holds together the parts of the firearm that are actually under stress, and even then it still broke.
 
2012-12-26 12:22:52 AM  
I love the 3D movies that are out, as long as they were filmed for 3D and not converted later.

I'll go even further and it's going to sound like I'm trolling but I swear I'm not. I enjoyed HFR 3D at The Hobbit. It took a little getting used to, but I liked it. I hope all movies use it going forward, and that they work out their scene lighting issues along the way. (HFR 3D reminded me of HD TV in stores compared to Netflix streaming on my PC monitor at home - the lighting was weird, sometimes.)
 
2012-12-26 12:32:56 AM  

Xenomech: If you don't think every home is going to have a 3-D printer in twenty years, you're farking retarded.


Does every home have a computer in it today? I know some that do not.
 
2012-12-26 12:38:43 AM  
When they added sound to movies. there were complainers.
When they added colour to movies, there were complainers.
When they added wide screens, there were complainers.
No matter what new technique makes it into the 7th art, there are complainers. I'm sure some of them would profess to prefer that all our tablets were still made of clay.

I just don't get all the hate for 3D. I get motion sickness just watching objects move, yet I have never felt nausea at a 3D movie (at least not from the 3D; some scenarios have been pretty hurl inducing).

/taking my daughter and godson to see the Hobbit in Imax 3D next week. Can't wait.
 
2012-12-26 12:44:19 AM  
I've seen three movies in 3d. The Avengers, Judge Dredd and The Hobbit (imax). Of those, I would only say that Dredd greatly improved the movie experience. The Hobbit was somewhat improved by 3d and The Avengers not at all. Not to say that it didn't have its moments, but the overall experience was a wash.

I experience some eye fatigue during a 3d viewing, but no headaches or nausea as of yet. Basically, I find that there are times in which it promotes immersion and moments where it is more of a distraction.

Having a small sample size, I haven't made a concrete decision on how I feel about the technology, but I'm leaning towards it being unnecessary for most films.
 
2012-12-26 12:48:25 AM  

m3000: Maybe it's just people on the internet, but since 3D often makes more than 2D (which also assumes they felt it was worth the premium) then there's still a lot of people who like the format.

Personally I'm a fan of 3D. I generally always pick it, never have headaches or anything, never find the glasses uncomfortable over my prescription glasses, and don't understand these arguements over the merits of 3D being tied to a movie plot (ie Avatar).


Kind of my stance here. If I have a choice I choose 3D. Some of it is very subtle, some not. The last one I saw was MiB 3. It was a bit over the edge with the 3D but it worked for a basically cartoon type of movie. And the few bux more is not going to make me homeless.

I like to go early to films because the popcorn is better. Yeah, I buy popcorn and sometimes polish dogs.

/am I going to get killed because I liked it?
//and buy products at the theaters?
 
2012-12-26 12:49:48 AM  

D_Evans45: Haliburton Cummings: d_evans45:...

i bet you liked White Knights in 3D too.

stop suckholing.


I dont even get that reference. Why is it "suckholing" to enjoy 3d movies? It sucks that you personally experience eye discomfort, but most people don't get headaches. Why should the vast majority have to suffer because a bunch of whiny pussies on the internet have shiatty eyesight?

3D is amazing when incorporated properly into a movie. If you cant appreciate that, it sucks to be you.

/Seriously, sucks to be you


actually dumbtard, i co-own two red's tricked out for shooting 3D. same cameras Jackson used on the Hobbit. I don't need to hear your dilettante whargbling...

it's your blathering on like an expert aficionado that is more than a little annoying.

your response here is lame too. i'm addressing your entitled whiny butthurt and patent trolling here.
"why is liking 3d suckholing??"
you are another dunce on the fark who belongs on 4chan...

White Knights is a film from the eighties, but that was more of a double entendre referring to "white knighting" where trolls like yourself suckhole up to some other person who might vaguely agree with your entitled view.

you post like a spoiled child.

go back to your cubicle and finish some work if you can't handle being alone for the holidays...

/yes, i am nailing your ex as we speak.
//go cry now
 
2012-12-26 12:52:39 AM  

PsiChick: Immersive in what, the nerdy glee as you realize there's slightly more depth between foreground and background and start trying to figure out the exact mechanics involved? Because I really can't think of anything more movie-wrecking than sitting around wearing glasses for nothing.


Who tries to figure out the mechanics? I might see how the DoF is used but I just enjoy (or not) the movies. I don't analyze how it was done. I try to pay attention to the story and acting.
 
2012-12-26 12:52:51 AM  
I have seen a couple films in 3d, including Avatar, but I hate it. First of all I wear glasses, so I have to wear glasses on top of my glasses. I can do that, and if the end result was something I cared to see I would, but the 3d itself I find completely distracting. I don't get headaches or nausea when I watch but I just find the 3d to be something that takes away from the experience, not adds to it.
 
2012-12-26 12:58:03 AM  

capt.hollister: I just don't get all the hate for 3D. I get motion sickness just watching objects move, yet I have never felt nausea at a 3D movie (at least not from the 3D; some scenarios have been pretty hurl inducing).


i think it's safe to say that CGI suffered in it's early stages as well for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

in the hands of a skilled director, they become "state of the art applications" as opposed to "gimmicks".

multiplane animation in its earliest forms is another great example; when it was done well, it was amazing. there are some fine examples of it being done quite awfully. (see any Ralph Bakshi film)

it's my educated and informed opinion that when a really good director masters the form, the form will be acceptable.

it's like those awful CGI camera moves from the 90's...in everything...

it needs to be a subtle experience punctuated with spectacle, not rockem sockem rock robots hurling cgi turds with hobbit/dwarve garters on.

it's also in it's infancy as a technology...

so there...
 
2012-12-26 01:01:05 AM  

skinink: What's worse than a bad 3D movie is someone making douchy comments in support of some topic. I can't understand why a Farker has to act like a jerk because someone doesn't like what you do. Myself, I can enjoy a movie without 3D because it seems like a gimmick to make you pay more for a movie. I'm glad you enjoy 3D movies, but you act like like it's the best thing ever. Why would you care if someone calls Avatar a shaitty gimmicky movie? I await your irrational response typed out with tiny fists of rage.


*raises hand*

I don't care if they call it a shiatty movie.
 
2012-12-26 01:02:53 AM  

saturn badger: Xenomech: If you don't think every home is going to have a 3-D printer in twenty years, you're farking retarded.

Does every home have a computer in it today? I know some that do not.


Really? Just looking around my living room and kitchen I see at least 20 computers. Even my goddamn stove has a computer in it. Why? Hell if I know, but it does.

I expect 3d printers to become real common, real soon. As in, when you're done with the dishes, you don't put them in the dishwasher. You put them in the 3d printer and recycle them.
 
2012-12-26 01:05:30 AM  
 
2012-12-26 01:06:37 AM  

saturn badger: PsiChick: Immersive in what, the nerdy glee as you realize there's slightly more depth between foreground and background and start trying to figure out the exact mechanics involved? Because I really can't think of anything more movie-wrecking than sitting around wearing glasses for nothing.

Who tries to figure out the mechanics? I might see how the DoF is used but I just enjoy (or not) the movies. I don't analyze how it was done. I try to pay attention to the story and acting.


That's my point. It breaks your concentration completely to have to put on those glasses--instead of doing what you've done your whole life (and actually comes naturally to the same degree a book would, give or take a bit of visual stimulus), you're suddenly looking for the 3D, but properly used it should be nearly invisible. So the only thing left is geeking.
 
2012-12-26 01:07:50 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: saturn badger: Xenomech: If you don't think every home is going to have a 3-D printer in twenty years, you're farking retarded.

Does every home have a computer in it today? I know some that do not.

Really? Just looking around my living room and kitchen I see at least 20 computers. Even my goddamn stove has a computer in it. Why? Hell if I know, but it does.

I expect 3d printers to become real common, real soon. As in, when you're done with the dishes, you don't put them in the dishwasher. You put them in the 3d printer and recycle them.


Some babies were dropped on their heads. You, however, were clearly thrown at the wall.
 
2012-12-26 01:08:30 AM  
I personally believe that 3d is superior to 2d for all purposes whatsoever.
 
2012-12-26 01:09:03 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: multiplane animation in its earliest forms is another great example; when it was done well, it was amazing. there are some fine examples of it being done quite awfully. (see any Ralph Bakshi film)


Disney was really good at the multiplane stuff well before him. 101 Dalmations is a good example. I like Ralph too.

//they shot fritz!
 
2012-12-26 01:12:47 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Really? Just looking around my living room and kitchen I see at least 20 computers. Even my goddamn stove has a computer in it. Why? Hell if I know, but it does.

I expect 3d printers to become real common, real soon. As in, when you're done with the dishes, you don't put them in the dishwasher. You put them in the 3d printer and recycle them.


Sure. That is fine and dandy but how many do you have you can sit down at and interact with above a minimal level? As in how many will interact with a 3D printer?

Sure. They will be in many households but you said every. That was my point.
 
2012-12-26 01:15:47 AM  

PsiChick: That's my point. It breaks your concentration completely to have to put on those glasses--instead of doing what you've done your whole life (and actually comes naturally to the same degree a book would, give or take a bit of visual stimulus), you're suddenly looking for the 3D, but properly used it should be nearly invisible. So the only thing left is geeking.


It doesn't break my concentration. Every once in a while I get the wow factor and that is cool but most of the time It is pretty subtle. Maybe I am different than some in that way.

Whatever. I just like them.
 
2012-12-26 01:21:34 AM  

saturn badger: PsiChick: That's my point. It breaks your concentration completely to have to put on those glasses--instead of doing what you've done your whole life (and actually comes naturally to the same degree a book would, give or take a bit of visual stimulus), you're suddenly looking for the 3D, but properly used it should be nearly invisible. So the only thing left is geeking.

It doesn't break my concentration. Every once in a while I get the wow factor and that is cool but most of the time It is pretty subtle. Maybe I am different than some in that way.

Whatever. I just like them.


Eh, fair enough. :)
 
2012-12-26 01:28:10 AM  

Haliburton Cummings: capt.hollister: I just don't get all the hate for 3D. I get motion sickness just watching objects move, yet I have never felt nausea at a 3D movie (at least not from the 3D; some scenarios have been pretty hurl inducing).

i think it's safe to say that CGI suffered in it's early stages as well for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

in the hands of a skilled director, they become "state of the art applications" as opposed to "gimmicks".

multiplane animation in its earliest forms is another great example; when it was done well, it was amazing. there are some fine examples of it being done quite awfully. (see any Ralph Bakshi film)

it's my educated and informed opinion that when a really good director masters the form, the form will be acceptable.

it's like those awful CGI camera moves from the 90's...in everything...

it needs to be a subtle experience punctuated with spectacle, not rockem sockem rock robots hurling cgi turds with hobbit/dwarve garters on.

it's also in it's infancy as a technology...

so there...


We generally agree, though I must say that as a movie-goer, I enjoy when rockem sockem robots hurl cgi turds with hobbit/dwarf garters on when it has never been done before. Novelty in entertainment has its value and its place. I'm old enough to remember when the surround sound experience of "Earthquake" was enough to turn a mediocre made-for-tv movie into a cinematic experience. A couple of years later, surround-sound was a given and we movie-goers went back to expecting a good story in addition to great sound. The same happened with cgi, and again with 3D. As you say, the latter is in its infancy, but soon it won't be and we will take is as a given and expect a great story to go along with it. I haven't seen it yet, but I have a good feeling that The Hobbit in Imax 3D will tick both the great story and wondrous tech boxes.

That being said, it is also true that in general, the first version of a new technology is rarely as good the the last version of the previous technology.

/Can't wait to see what kind of immersive technology some of you guys are developing.
 
2012-12-26 01:34:13 AM  

PsiChick: It breaks your concentration completely to have to put on those glasses--instead of doing what you've done your whole life


Oh. The glasses part. I have worn glasses most of my life. If I don't put them on I turn into Mr. Magoo. Slipping another pair on top of them is really not a big deal to me. I don't notice them once they are on.

What interested me the most through the thread is the hate for 3D. If you don't like it don't go see it but nooooooo! Everyone has to post their hate for it and their reasons why. Fine. This, after all, is the Internet where we can all show our love/hate for anything. Heck, that is what I am doing here, right?

A movie is good or bad. 3D is not going to fix that.

And I liked Cars 2. In 3D, no less. It was a fun movie for me.

/really wish the remake of True Grit was 3D
//really really wish No Country For Old Men was
///old man here
 
2012-12-26 01:45:48 AM  

saturn badger: What interested me the most through the thread is the hate for 3D. If you don't like it don't go see it but nooooooo! Everyone has to post their hate for it and their reasons why. Fine. This, after all, is the Internet where we can all show our love/hate for anything. Heck, that is what I am doing here, right?


For me, it's when I'm stoked to see a movie, the local theater decides to book just the expensive 3D showing, they keep the projectors' lights turned down low, and I'm left wondering why the hell I wasted my money when I should have waited for the video release.

Plus, it was pretty clear, imho, that Peter Jackson's storytelling was hurt in The Hobbit by how in love he was with the 48fps 4k Reds. The brilliant thing about LOTR (and I love LOTR, suck it, purists, Tolkien's version would have made a shiatty movie) was that it tells a story filled with emotion. The Hobbit looks really awesome.
 
2012-12-26 01:49:34 AM  
I have headaches when i watch more then 15 minutes of 3-D. But with my 2-D Glasses I can enjoy the 3-D movies now and not get headaches, and only watch the 3-d when it matters to me to SEE 3-D

www.2d-glasses.com
 
2012-12-26 01:53:03 AM  

pldiguanaman: I love 3D including Avatar and the new Hobbit. The "naysayers" can go along with the people biatching about "color" being a "gimmick" and how sound really "ruins" and picture and is annoying. The more immersive they can make the movies the better. The rest of you can go rot with your 2D and mono sound and other crappola from the past.


And those of us that get vomitastic migraines from 3D should do what exactly? It's not just that it's a sadass gimmick, it's a sadass gimmick that gives me a literal headache. I say "Bon voyage, 3D. Do forget to write and stay gone."
 
2012-12-26 01:53:22 AM  

capt.hollister: Novelty in entertainment has its value and its place. I'm old enough to remember when the surround sound experience of "Earthquake" was enough to turn a mediocre made-for-tv movie into a cinematic experience. A couple of years later, surround-sound was a given and we movie-goers went back to expecting a good story in addition to great sound. The same happened with cgi, and again with 3D. As you say, the latter is in its infancy, but soon it won't be and we will take is as a given and expect a great story to go along with it.


Earthquake wasn't "surround sound" it's gimmick was huge sub woofers tuned to sub-sonic to make the pounding in your chest. It was called Sensurround.
3-D has been around since the 50's, we're only seeing brighter screens and more main stream movies and a shift to better polarized glasses. To me it it's not 3-D, but planes of images. So each plane is a cardboard cutout of that depth of field.
It's distracting to me and removes the focus from the movie to trying to focus your eyes. Sure, for action movies it's a good trick.

As far as surround sound goes. Disney's Fantasia in it's original release was multi track sound in the 40's. With speakers along the sides, front and back of the theater.
 
2012-12-26 02:12:34 AM  

pldiguanaman: I love 3D including Avatar and the new Hobbit. The "naysayers" can go along with the people biatching about "color" being a "gimmick" and how sound really "ruins" and picture and is annoying. The more immersive they can make the movies the better. The rest of you can go rot with your 2D and mono sound and other crappola from the past.


Color and stereo don't require the user to wear a special device I order to experience it, and they aren't used as gimmicks.

3D would be fine if it didn't require glasses, didn't cause the movie to be too dark, and wasn't used as a gimmick.
 
2012-12-26 02:15:37 AM  
buncha farking loser whiners! 3D is not a "gimmick" 3D is awesome and I am sorry you have defective brains that can't process it correctly.
 
2012-12-26 02:17:01 AM  
Also, fark MOTION BLUR!!! 24fps is outdated by decades and motion blur is farking annoying!!!!
 
2012-12-26 02:32:51 AM  

optikeye: capt.hollister: Novelty in entertainment has its value and its place. I'm old enough to remember when the surround sound experience of "Earthquake" was enough to turn a mediocre made-for-tv movie into a cinematic experience. A couple of years later, surround-sound was a given and we movie-goers went back to expecting a good story in addition to great sound. The same happened with cgi, and again with 3D. As you say, the latter is in its infancy, but soon it won't be and we will take is as a given and expect a great story to go along with it.

Earthquake wasn't "surround sound" it's gimmick was huge sub woofers tuned to sub-sonic to make the pounding in your chest. It was called Sensurround.
3-D has been around since the 50's, we're only seeing brighter screens and more main stream movies and a shift to better polarized glasses. To me it it's not 3-D, but planes of images. So each plane is a cardboard cutout of that depth of field.
It's distracting to me and removes the focus from the movie to trying to focus your eyes. Sure, for action movies it's a good trick.

As far as surround sound goes. Disney's Fantasia in it's original release was multi track sound in the 40's. With speakers along the sides, front and back of the theater.


I stand (sit, actually) corrected on Earthquake, the 20th century was such a long time ago that my brain has started to erase bits of it to make room for the much more interesting 21st century stuff.

As for 3D, I know what you mean about planes of images. Some 3D tv does this to me, but most movies do not, unless they are 3D versions of movies originally shot in 2D. Cartoons are the worst culprits. Fortunately, most 3D movies were originally shot in 3D and do not give me this impression of multiple planes.

Mind you, multi-2d planes or not, when a movie is available in both formats, I will always choose and enjoy 3d over 2d.

Fantasia is a technical masterpiece for all kinds or reasons. The ability to match hand-drawings to the music is breathtaking. I feel the same about The Rabbit of Seville (yes, I said it).
 
2012-12-26 02:37:24 AM  

Mr_Ectomy: /still haven't seen Avatar
//or Titanic


But in Super 3D Titanic you can feel the action!


s9.postimage.org
 
2012-12-26 03:06:33 AM  
I don't go to the theater anymore for two reasons:
1) For the price of 1.5 tickets, I can buy the movie on retail release and watch it at home whenever the fark I want.
2) 3D gives me a farking headache that lasts for the rest of the night and confuses my balance. I can walk on and off a ship with no trouble trouble alternating between sea-legs and lubber legs, but 3D farks me up.
 
2012-12-26 03:39:25 AM  
You'd have to be a simpleton to request movies in 3D
 
2012-12-26 03:52:30 AM  

pippi longstocking: You'd have to be a simpleton to request movies in 3D


I'll bet you walk around all day with one eye closed, so you won't be thought of as a simpleton.
If 2D is good enough for a Cyclops, it's good enough for you.
 
2012-12-26 04:15:08 AM  
i47.tinypic.com

/Go puke now.
 
2012-12-26 04:21:06 AM  
The only time 3d noticeably improved a film for me was Jackass 3-D. I almost died laughing at the wobbly weeners flying at me.
 
2012-12-26 04:22:59 AM  
Haven't been to a 3D movie yet, so I'll have to whine about something else. I wish Hollywood would be done with the hand-held shaky camera, like in Hunger Games.
 
2012-12-26 04:23:03 AM  

imsol: If you like Avatar, you are pathetic.


Jesus. Some people are so farking serious about the stupidest shiat.

I liked Avatar for what it was. I went KNOWING it was a fluff movie with standard characters. I EXPECTED that. I wanted to enjoy the 3D cinematography, nothing more, and I did. It was a pretty movie.

farking get over yourself.
 
2012-12-26 05:27:56 AM  

themindiswatching: JeffMD: Anyone who thinks 3d suck and hope it dies prolly thought the same of bluray, dvd.

BluRay and DVD are dying, though. See: iTunes Store, Google Play.


Renting a movie on iTunes costs two or three times as much as having a new DVD dropped in my mailbox. I'm sticking with DVD until that changes.
 
2012-12-26 05:29:18 AM  
One thing the 3-D advocates forget is that something like up to 30% of the folks out there are stereo-blind, meaning they can't see in true stereoscopic vision, so 3-D is lost on them. I have strabismus, meaning my eyes are off by a slight angle, so I can't see stereo myself. I have to admit that my being stereo-blind has biased my opinion on the technology.

I did see two 3-D films in the theaters: one was Predator back in the 80s, a very crummy film that beat to death the gimmick of throwing stuff at the audience every minute or so. The other 3-D film was Final Destination V which, sadly, I saw in Graumann's Chinese Theater when I was in Hollywood last year. Sadly, because I would have rather watched an old Deanna Durbin film than the gore-fest that was Final Destination--the only thing worse about blood and guts is blood and guts hurled at the audience in the computer-generated faux 3-D.

3-D has been around since the Plasticon movies of the 20s. In the 50s, there were a ton of 3-D films around the time that Cinerama was making the rounds. Just gimmicks to draw people away from the new-fangled televisions and into the theaters. There were a few 3-D films, including Predator that also came out in the 80s. I figure this current tiresome 3-D obsession will soon run its course. There's nothing new about the current crop of 3-D films--it's the same old polarized glasses which give people headaches.

The thing is this: except for the tiny percentage of color-blind people who are truly monochromatic (most are bi-chromatic), there's no mistaking color film from black and white, even with the crummy old 2-color processes like Cinecolor or the old 2-strip Technicolor. If 3-D is so easily discernible from 2-D, why do most 3-D films do the old cliche of hurling stuff at the audience every few minutes? Even classic 3-D films from 1952-54 like Kiss Me, Kate have to toss stuff at the audience every few minutes to remind them that it's a stereoscopic film.

Besides, true stereo vision only works up to 30 times the inter-ocular distance (2.5") so anything beyond 75" or so is basically flat. Unless you make movies in all close-ups, just about everything is going to be more than 75" from the movie cameras. Yes, you can change the baseline between the left and right camera--with a big enough baseline, you can film a skyscraper in 3-D--but a large baseline means your skyscrapers and mountains look tiny like they're on a model railroad.

There's many other ways to add depth to a movie that don't depend on stereo vision or glasses. Atmospheric haze, perspective, relative size of objects all add to the illusion of depth. The best one, though, is to simply move the camera while filming (not a pan or a tilt, but a real dolly shot) because the shifting perspectives of a tracking shot do a lot to add to the illusion of depth, probably more than actual stereoscopic movie making. Heck, the old German Expressionist films of the 20s with their constantly-moving cameras really give a strong sense of depth...
 
2012-12-26 05:54:16 AM  
Here's an interesting thought experiment: what if you showed a 2-D movie in a theater, but billed it as a 3-D one and passed out the polarized glasses? Even better, added an annoying flicker and throw in a bunch of shots in the film of stuff hurling at the audience. I'll bet that at least half of the audience would swear they actually saw a true 3-D film.

I've looked at those old stereo photographs from the 1800s many times. You might notice a parallax difference between the two images if it's a portrait or still-life taken from a short distance away. However, landscape pictures taken with the old stereo cameras--especially if there's nothing in the foreground--look exactly the same with the left and right image and the 3-D effect is only in the viewer's mind. (Not hard to understand; if the landscape is 100 feet from the camera, the parallax difference is so small as to be meaningless. Anything over 75", or 30 inter-ocular distances, is going to appear flat unless you put something in the foreground.)

And don't even get me started on the wide-screen craze of the 50s and how systems like CinemaScope were really, really stupid and impractical or I'll rant for a very long time...
 
2012-12-26 05:55:54 AM  
As someone who is only interested in films about human beings, I really don't understand why any of you would waste an instant of your lives watching any of this crap.

/let me know when they get that holodeck shiat working
//my tv can upconvert 2D to 3D so the news is really exciting!!!
///recommended reading -- The Films of John Cassavetes: Pragmatism, Modernism & The Movies by Ray Carney
 
2012-12-26 06:29:51 AM  

St. Celery: As someone who is only interested in films about human beings, I really don't understand why any of you would waste an instant of your lives watching any of this crap.

/let me know when they get that holodeck shiat working
//my tv can upconvert 2D to 3D so the news is really exciting!!!
///recommended reading -- The Films of John Cassavetes: Pragmatism, Modernism & The Movies by Ray Carney


I hear you. I only like BBC documentaries about the hagfish. Anything else is a waste of my time.
 
2012-12-26 06:49:37 AM  
The 3D conversions of Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc worked pretty well....and Hugo was (surprisingly) well-done as a 3-D movie. Life of Pi, too.

Some movies I'll go see as 2D, just because I don't wan the potential headache and eye strain - and texting seems to light up my whole 3D glasses - no matter where the person is in the theater, my eye catches it. It makes movie texting 3X as annoying.

....but as I noticed with Nemo and MI, good storytelling trumps pretty much everything else. If you start with a good story, CGI and 3D only add to the experience. If the writing is shiatty, no amount of SFX wizardry and screen gimmicks can save a crappy movie. (I'm looking at YOU, George Lucas).
 
2012-12-26 07:27:26 AM  
I don`t see why we have to have the new talkies, any good director can tell a story without using sound and it detracts from the visual experience. Also colour is not used properly by many directors so we should not use that either which means all films should be silent, black and white and 2D.
 
2012-12-26 07:47:17 AM  

D_Evans45: I see all these "ZOMG my eyes bleed and I vomit terribly!1" posts on the internet, but have yet to see a single person in real life complain of nausea from a 3D movie. "Insane nausea" like people are laying in aisles vomiting all over each other. Grow up, submittard.

I enjoy 3D movies, the price difference is only $2 (can't afford that?), and the viewing experience is much more enjoyable. Up in 3D was spectacular, on top of an already decent movie it really shined. It wasnt gimmicky or special FX-y, it was stunning visual appeal that made me actually analyze each vivid backdrop in so many scenes. Some movies are just whatever, but some are amazing in 3D. If you can't ever realize this because you experience stomach discomfort and need to leave the theater instead, you are missing out on a damn good thing.

It sucks that you dont enjoy it, but for the rest of us it's freaking awesome when done correctly. It's been around enough years that I'm optimistic about it sticking around. I just hope more movies utilize the power of 3D correctly, instead of gimmicking it in like many have. A 3D TV is my next purchase actually, with so many good games out supporting 3D nowadays as well it's even more of a win.


Well, you have heard of one now. I have a small amount of strabisimus even after the surgery. 3d movies and those damn 'hidden object' posters give me a frigging headache, much like random farkers who believe their opinion is the same as The World, and anyone who has a differing one is a n00b.

\$20 on the fail of 3d in the next 10 years
\\$10 on the fail of movie theaters in the next 20
 
2012-12-26 08:59:53 AM  
At home, I totally enjoyed Avatar, Harold and Kumar's Christmas, Hugo, PoC on Stranger Tides, Nemo, Prometheus, Up, Captain America, Paranorman and definitely Katy Perry. Going to see the Hobbit today.
Full disclosure: I smoke a ton of weed first, drink a triple espresso, jack up the brightness on the screen, wear the 3D glasses over my normal ones, smoke some more weed. Remember to let the director direct your focus - if you try to look at background images you are going to get a headache. Oh, weed helps.
 
2012-12-26 09:44:50 AM  
the biggest problem with Avatar is this -

while it was in fact a pretty movie, the main character models SUCK SUCK SUCK. the blue cat people look FAKE FAKE FAKE and since that was the state of the art in CGI at the time, the movie can do nothing but date horribly, and since the only draw the movie has is fantastic visuals, it means that the current highest grossing movie of all time is a derivative piece of shiat that can in no way stand the test of time.

the CGI Gollum in The Two Towers holds up better than the shiatty blue cat people of Avatar, and HE LOOKED LIKE CRAP.

I enjoyed Avatar for what it was. I don't hate it or anything and have seen it several times for the nice visuals. I simply don't get how that film pulled in the money that it did.
 
2012-12-26 09:53:58 AM  
I've yet to see a 3D movie and I never will. I'm okay with movies in 2D.
 
2012-12-26 10:18:52 AM  

jtown: People are done with 3D movies because, for a brief moment in time, 3D was the only thing that made going to the theater a unique experience. Once we had 50+ inch 1920x1080 displays and 5.1-7.1 channel sound in every household, there was no reason to go out to see a movie unless you just had to see it on opening day. You could have decent snacks and drink beer at home without having to put up with a crying baby in an R rated movie at 10pm. So the studios revived 3D and, for a couple years, had an edge again. But now we can get 3D at home for cheap so why bother going out?


You're overestimating the average household's A/V setup if you think 50" displays and surround sound are common. That's only worth the money if you're spending a significant amount of time on the couch. It's not worth it for me to spend thousands on a home setup like that, so when a movie comes out that I'm looking forward to, I just cough up the $10 or $15. Which is maybe once a month at most.

I'll go to the 21+ theater if the movie's playing there, so no teenagers, let along crying babies. Also, a lot of the stuff I watch like the Banff mountain film festival just aren't available for home viewing.
 
2012-12-26 10:27:00 AM  
None of the current batch of 3D movies I've seen have featured gratuitous use of the shiat-flying-at-the-camera gimmick. Which movies are you people talking about?
 
2012-12-26 10:38:48 AM  

ZeroPly: You're overestimating the average household's A/V setup if you think 50" displays and surround sound are common.


you are underestimating the power of the income tax refund and the advent of sub-400 dollar HDTV's. Most people I know have at least a 42 inch widescreen flat panel HDTV in their home at this point, and most of them have at least a dvd player. Hell, my own dad has a 46 inch flat panel and blu-ray, and this is a man that when his 27 inch old crt tv died a few years ago went to yard sales for days until he found the exact same model tv to replace it with when it died. My mom has a 46 inch flat panel HDTV mounted on the wall and blu-ray and surround sound.

I am 40. My parents are getting old. These are the prime people that shouldn't care much about this tv shiat and yet both have pretty up-to-date stuff. I don't have a single friend any longer without widescreen HDTV's.

The theater sucks.
 
2012-12-26 10:39:14 AM  

doglover: dj245: I don't necessarily agree that the description "3d printer" is difficult to say,

It's not difficult to say. It's "more difficult than" fabricator, but still easy. It just has the cacophony of poor measure only those in whose souls poetry is well and truly dead can enjoy. Math kills language, language kills math. You can only learn so much of one before the other suffers. That's why scientists SUCK at naming things. They're so bad at it you could probably hire researchers by asking them to name a series of machines and hiring the people who apply the worst names according to a professional writer.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-26 10:42:58 AM  
Is it just me but it seems like I can watch movies like that.. say Monsters vs Aliens and If I watch with just one eye open...
the movie seems to "pop" into 3D.
 
2012-12-26 10:49:07 AM  
People whining about the theater experience, don't any of you go to the movies as a social event? Hanging out with your buddies or God forbid, take out a girl? And movies really aren't that more expensive. It is possible to survive for 2 hours without shoveling shiatty food into your hole.

As for all the snarky comments comparing the dislike of 3D to the dislike of talkies and color, both of which enhanced the reality of the experience and without sound and to a lesser extent color, a filmmaker usually couldn't do what he wanted. "3D" does nothing to enhance the reality of the experience because it's not 3D. It's a pop-up book. It's not any revolutionary technology.
 
2012-12-26 10:56:40 AM  

Mugato: People whining about the theater experience, don't any of you go to the movies as a social event? Hanging out with your buddies or God forbid, take out a girl?


going to watch a movie isn't really much of a social event. If you are polite to the other people in the theater you are not talking to your friends or chatting up a date, you are watching a farking movie, which if is engrossing enough makes you forget temporarily about the people around you anyway.

Mugato: "3D" does nothing to enhance the reality of the experience because it's not 3D. It's a pop-up book. It's not any revolutionary technology.


I gotta agree here. I have seen a few of the new 3d movies in the theater and I'll be honest, I just don't really care for it. It can be neat, but it adds nothing to the movie in general. I would just as soon watch a 2d presentation so that I can focus on the film and the story being told, and not so much "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR YOU" effects.

Having said THAT - Toy Story 3 in 3d was pretty good. The 3d simply added depth and I stopped noticing the 3d after about 10 minutes.
 
2012-12-26 11:12:45 AM  

frepnog: going to watch a movie isn't really much of a social event. If you are polite to the other people in the theater you are not talking to your friends or chatting up a date, you are watching a farking movie, which if is engrossing enough makes you forget temporarily about the people around you anyway.


Ok, fair enough. I'm a film geek so since jr. high, I would take in a movie with my buddies and afterward bullshiat about it. Same with girls and actual dates later. Some people care about movies more than others.
 
2012-12-26 11:13:19 AM  

BalugaJoe: The glasses give me a headache.


this^

also i don't enjoy paying for my entertainment twice+
 
2012-12-26 11:25:13 AM  

frepnog: the biggest problem with Avatar is this -

while it was in fact a pretty movie, the main character models SUCK SUCK SUCK. the blue cat people look FAKE FAKE FAKE and since that was the state of the art in CGI at the time, the movie can do nothing but date horribly, and since the only draw the movie has is fantastic visuals, it means that the current highest grossing movie of all time is a derivative piece of shiat that can in no way stand the test of time.

the CGI Gollum in The Two Towers holds up better than the shiatty blue cat people of Avatar, and HE LOOKED LIKE CRAP.

I enjoyed Avatar for what it was. I don't hate it or anything and have seen it several times for the nice visuals. I simply don't get how that film pulled in the money that it did.


Yes, it will not age well. So ? that's just a good reason to see it now, isn't it ?
Sometimes, the technology and visuals are the message. That makes it worth the price of admission, regardless of what I may think about it 10 years from now. I don't live in the past. I also don't live in the future.

Besides, no matter what new and wonderful technology the future brings us, there will be Farkers who will diss it.
 
2012-12-26 11:25:50 AM  

Mugato: frepnog: going to watch a movie isn't really much of a social event. If you are polite to the other people in the theater you are not talking to your friends or chatting up a date, you are watching a farking movie, which if is engrossing enough makes you forget temporarily about the people around you anyway.

Ok, fair enough. I'm a film geek so since jr. high, I would take in a movie with my buddies and afterward bullshiat about it. Same with girls and actual dates later. Some people care about movies more than others.


yeah, I hear ya. I used to care pretty much only about movies, I didn't really watch television shows. and then Breaking Bad really challenged my perceptions on what television can be. I watch BB, Dexter, The Walking Dead and several other shows. What does that have to do with anything, you say? who can tell.
 
2012-12-26 11:33:11 AM  

capt.hollister: frepnog: the biggest problem with Avatar is this -

while it was in fact a pretty movie, the main character models SUCK SUCK SUCK. the blue cat people look FAKE FAKE FAKE and since that was the state of the art in CGI at the time, the movie can do nothing but date horribly, and since the only draw the movie has is fantastic visuals, it means that the current highest grossing movie of all time is a derivative piece of shiat that can in no way stand the test of time.

the CGI Gollum in The Two Towers holds up better than the shiatty blue cat people of Avatar, and HE LOOKED LIKE CRAP.

I enjoyed Avatar for what it was. I don't hate it or anything and have seen it several times for the nice visuals. I simply don't get how that film pulled in the money that it did.

Yes, it will not age well. So ? that's just a good reason to see it now, isn't it ?
Sometimes, the technology and visuals are the message. That makes it worth the price of admission, regardless of what I may think about it 10 years from now. I don't live in the past. I also don't live in the future.

Besides, no matter what new and wonderful technology the future brings us, there will be Farkers who will diss it.


not really. it means that it looked fake now, so in the future it will simply look worse. the blue cat people of Avatar were a bad decision. They should have just used people and makeup and the movie in my mind would be at least 50 percent improved. the tech wasn't there yet for totally believable CGI blue cat people. the ENVIRONMENTS look amazing in Avatar, as do some of the alien creatures and the mech suits and what not. The blue cat people just look like bad CGI.

oh - and this guy here -
4.bp.blogspot.com
SUCKED. His acting sucked. Why didn't they just get R Lee Ermey, that is obviously who he was channeling anyway. This guy right here sucks so bad that I just hate every scene he is in.
 
2012-12-26 12:51:06 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Popcorn Johnny: Avatar was awesome in 3D.

But it is actually a shiatty movie with a tiresome plot and cardboard characters spouting out every cliche in the book. Would people from that far in the future really reference the Wizard of Oz? It was made for 3-D and Cameron is a compentent director so it worked as a shiatty summer flick. Nothing more


Your Login = Jules Verne novel referenced in a Pixar film referenced by a Farker. i think Oz will be a trope of finding oneself in a radically strange world for quite some time. Welcome to Fark, you're not in Kansas anymore.
 
2012-12-26 01:05:33 PM  

Mugato: Ok, fair enough. I'm a film geek so since jr. high, I would take in a movie with my buddies and afterward bullshiat about it. Same with girls and actual dates later. Some people care about movies more than others.


There's nothing better than seeing a movie with my wife, getting into a heated philosophical argument about it for 20 minutes afterward, and then having raucous, intellectually-charged makeup sex. THAT's how you know it was good film.
 
2012-12-26 01:13:39 PM  

frepnog: oh - and this guy here -SUCKED. His acting sucked. Why didn't they just get R Lee Ermey, that is obviously who he was channeling anyway. This guy right here sucks so bad that I just hate every scene he is in.


Stephen Lang did as much as anyone could with that role. He's actually a pretty good actor. I saw him as COL Nathan Jessup on Broadway in "A Few Good Men". He made Jack Nicholson look like a summer stock actor.
 
2012-12-26 01:29:35 PM  

kokomo61: frepnog: oh - and this guy here -SUCKED. His acting sucked. Why didn't they just get R Lee Ermey, that is obviously who he was channeling anyway. This guy right here sucks so bad that I just hate every scene he is in.

Stephen Lang did as much as anyone could with that role. He's actually a pretty good actor. I saw him as COL Nathan Jessup on Broadway in "A Few Good Men". He made Jack Nicholson look like a summer stock actor.


without badmouthing the actor because I haven't personally SEEN what you describe - I seriously farking doubt it. He may have been good, but I just doubt he made Jack look bad.

/I guess I won't judge Lang on Avatar. The Star Wars prequels made Sam Jackson look like a shiatty actor after all.
 
2012-12-26 02:02:21 PM  
Glad to see I'm not alone in hating 3D. I find it usually makes things look less real. Peripheral objects appear to me to be insubstantial, and often one sees a fringe effect, most likely from the glasses, that seems to make edges refract light.

I also get the sense that something vital has been lost from the standpoint of direction and cinematography because the focal point of the camera seems to be lost. I want the director of the film to walk me through the scene, to reveal the narrative through the eyes of the camera. If I'm able to move around in the scene then the director and camera and focus lose their hold on the film.
 
2012-12-26 02:21:00 PM  
One last rant...

Personally, I consider content to be a zillion times more important than medium. I'd rather listen to an awesome song recorded on an Edison cylinder than an uninspired piece of crap recorded on the latest Dolby system. Likewise, a classic silent comedy like Buster Keaton's "Sherlock Jr." easily kicks ass over the latest Adam Sandler shipwreck filmed in 3-D.

/seriously, in 50 years from now, film archives will be in a hurry to convert Sandler's oeuvre to nitrate stock
//if you don't get the joke, you're probably a Sandler fan
 
2012-12-26 02:41:59 PM  

saturn badger: PsiChick: It breaks your concentration completely to have to put on those glasses--instead of doing what you've done your whole life

Oh. The glasses part. I have worn glasses most of my life. If I don't put them on I turn into Mr. Magoo. Slipping another pair on top of them is really not a big deal to me. I don't notice them once they are on.

What interested me the most through the thread is the hate for 3D. If you don't like it don't go see it but nooooooo! Everyone has to post their hate for it and their reasons why. Fine. This, after all, is the Internet where we can all show our love/hate for anything. Heck, that is what I am doing here, right?

A movie is good or bad. 3D is not going to fix that.

And I liked Cars 2. In 3D, no less. It was a fun movie for me.

/really wish the remake of True Grit was 3D
//really really wish No Country For Old Men was
///old man here


Part of it is that 3D actually can fark up the movie if you don't do whatever Avatar did to get rid of it, and then watching it in 3D can make people sick. Plus, theaters slap 3D onto 2D movies and you can't see them any other way.

So that's pretty much why people hate on it. It's a baby-step technology that screws moviegoers over.
 
2012-12-26 02:48:32 PM  
Tron: Legacy was a good use of 3D. The filmmakers made the scenes inside the computer 3D and the scenes in the real world 2D. That constant reminder that you're watching a screen actually made sense in the context of a film taking place in a digital world.
 
2012-12-26 03:02:10 PM  

frepnog: I just doubt he made Jack look bad.


Only in comparison. Jack Nicholson was the best part about that movie (him....and Kevin Pollack). When Lang was on stage, I sat frozen in my seat, he was that intense.
 
2012-12-26 05:43:30 PM  
The Godfather would be so much better in 3D.
 
2012-12-26 05:48:41 PM  

Haliburton Cummings:
actually dumbtard, i co-own two red's tricked out for shooting 3D. same cameras Jackson used on the Hobbit. I don't need to hear your dilettante whargbling...


Rich kids of instagram own million dollar cars, but they aren't Mario Andretti either. What is your point?
 
2012-12-26 08:57:07 PM  
3D movies do not work for me.

I see the screen, a lense, then another screen. I literally seperate the elements that make up the 3D and end up with a headache.

I have to take the glasses off and watch a fuzzy screen.
 
2012-12-26 09:36:48 PM  

PsiChick: Part of it is that 3D actually can fark up the movie if you don't do whatever Avatar did to get rid of it, and then watching it in 3D can make people sick. Plus, theaters slap 3D onto 2D movies and you can't see them any other way.

So that's pretty much why people hate on it. It's a baby-step technology that screws moviegoers over.


If people don't like it it's not like they are forced to see it. The theaters in my area show both versions. Each to his/her own.

But I'm not sure it screws moviegoers over. As stated I like it and that is my choice. It is other peoples choice to not spend the money if that is the only option. The theaters and movie makers won't really know why unless they read fark/blogs/whatever. I would assume they do but you know how their minds work. It seems to be they place the blame somewhere else mentality with them
 
2012-12-26 09:42:42 PM  

frepnog: I don't have a single friend any longer without widescreen HDTV's.

The theater sucks.


I don't have one but then we are not friends. ;)

I like theaters because the screens are much wider than 42" across and they generally have good sound systems. Plus the immersion in a darkened room is nice. By the time I go to one the mass has passed and they are fairly empty. Timing is crucial here for some movies though.

Different strokes, dude.
 
2012-12-26 09:55:03 PM  

saturn badger: PsiChick: Part of it is that 3D actually can fark up the movie if you don't do whatever Avatar did to get rid of it, and then watching it in 3D can make people sick. Plus, theaters slap 3D onto 2D movies and you can't see them any other way.

So that's pretty much why people hate on it. It's a baby-step technology that screws moviegoers over.

If people don't like it it's not like they are forced to see it. The theaters in my area show both versions. Each to his/her own.

But I'm not sure it screws moviegoers over. As stated I like it and that is my choice. It is other peoples choice to not spend the money if that is the only option. The theaters and movie makers won't really know why unless they read fark/blogs/whatever. I would assume they do but you know how their minds work. It seems to be they place the blame somewhere else mentality with them


...My local theater was only showing major movies in 3D for a while. And still occasionally does it. Whether or not the movie has 3D. And any theater within driving range did the same. So that's part of the rage against it--the theaters did want to remove the choice element because it made them money.
 
2012-12-27 12:08:04 AM  

PsiChick: ..My local theater was only showing major movies in 3D for a while. And still occasionally does it. Whether or not the movie has 3D. And any theater within driving range did the same. So that's part of the rage against it--the theaters did want to remove the choice element because it made them money.


And this is a valid point. If they are the only game in town then that is pretty much it.

Was only? Did they get better?

I can see The hobbit here at 24fps 3D or drive 40 minutes for 48fps Imax. I'll do the one here in a week or two. This weekend might be a good one to skip but then I think pretty much everyone who wants to see it already has but us laggards. It is on two screens in town and four about 15 minutes out of town. I doubt crowds will be a problem for me now. Also plenty of 2D showings. Monsters Inc. in both. I'll pass on the 3D remake though I do like the movie. On to others as the muse strikes. ;)
 
2012-12-27 12:22:39 AM  

saturn badger: PsiChick: ..My local theater was only showing major movies in 3D for a while. And still occasionally does it. Whether or not the movie has 3D. And any theater within driving range did the same. So that's part of the rage against it--the theaters did want to remove the choice element because it made them money.

And this is a valid point. If they are the only game in town then that is pretty much it.

Was only? Did they get better?

I can see The hobbit here at 24fps 3D or drive 40 minutes for 48fps Imax. I'll do the one here in a week or two. This weekend might be a good one to skip but then I think pretty much everyone who wants to see it already has but us laggards. It is on two screens in town and four about 15 minutes out of town. I doubt crowds will be a problem for me now. Also plenty of 2D showings. Monsters Inc. in both. I'll pass on the 3D remake though I do like the movie. On to others as the muse strikes. ;)


They stopped once the 3D hate started. Now I really don't care about 3D, other than personal dislike, but if the theaters are assholes about it, fark no, it can go DIAF. I don't want to barf and pay out my ass for the privilege of seeing a movie.
 
Displayed 278 of 278 comments

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