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.

(SlashFilm)   J.J. Abrams says 3D is annoying and gives him a headache but the studio wouldn't let him make another Star Trek movie without it. No word on his reaction to lensflare   (slashfilm.com) divider line 54
    More: Obvious, Star Trek, J.J. Abrams, SFX  
•       •       •

1336 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Jan 2013 at 9:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-12 08:18:51 AM
The last 3D movie that gave me a headache was Tron: Legacy. I didn't have any trouble with Avengers, The Hobbit, Prometheus, or any of the other stuff that came out more recently. I don't know if the techniques have gotten better, or if I'm just getting used to it.
 
2013-01-12 09:26:33 AM

Sybarite: I didn't have any trouble with Avengers, The Hobbit, Prometheus, or any of the other stuff that came out more recently


You didn't have any problem with Prometheus?
 
2013-01-12 09:38:00 AM

thamike: Sybarite: I didn't have any trouble with Avengers, The Hobbit, Prometheus, or any of the other stuff that came out more recently

You didn't have any problem with Prometheus?


LaughterOL
 
2013-01-12 09:44:03 AM
I saw the preview of the new Trek in 3D and it looked great. I like the modern 3D flicks, when they're shot right. I also loved the lens flares in the first Trek flick, so...your mileage may vary.
 
2013-01-12 09:45:52 AM
I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D and really regret it. The film was great, but looked visually like a pop-up book. For example, Gandalf would be flat and "projected" ahead of Bilbo in a simple dialogue scene. It became a distraction.
 
2013-01-12 09:52:07 AM
I saw my first 3D movie, since Friday the 13th 3D, not to long ago.

Can't say things have improved that much. certainly not enough to add $5 to the price
 
2013-01-12 09:52:47 AM
3D is incredibly annoying and I hope it will go away soon. In my experience it doesn't add anything to a movie and even leads to some annoying camera angles that are there just for the 3D.
 
2013-01-12 09:53:33 AM
Yes, Mr. Abrams, we all have problems with cash-grab gimmicks. I'll see your movie as god intended, on a screen with no stupid gimmick glasses on.
 
2013-01-12 09:58:59 AM
RELEASE THE FARKING MOVIE, ALREADY.
 
2013-01-12 10:01:26 AM
Can't do 3D. My eyes don't line up and I get a massive headache after 10 minutes.

$20 bill stays in my pocket.
 
2013-01-12 10:02:06 AM

Wayne 985: I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D and really regret it. The film was great, but looked visually like a pop-up book. For example, Gandalf would be flat and "projected" ahead of Bilbo in a simple dialogue scene. It became a distraction.


I had the exact opposite reaction. I *HATE* 3D, it always makes me nauseous because I feel like I have to work to see it (I do get motion sickness very easily). I decided to give The Hobbit a try, and I was absolutely blown away. It fixed everything I ever hated about 3D, and it was extremely immersive. I know some people complained about the clarity taking them out of the movie experience, but it definitely enhanced it for me. I saw a ton of things that I never saw in the two 2D viewings I watched before. I definitely will not see any 3D films that don't have the HFR now. I really hope that some of the negativity surrounding this particular movie doesn't keep filmmakers from experimenting with it- I think we could get some extremely interesting and wonderful results.
 
2013-01-12 10:03:08 AM

Type40: 3D is incredibly annoying and I hope it will go away soon. In my experience it doesn't add anything to a movie and even leads to some annoying camera angles that are there just for the 3D.


Who are these evil people that are forcing you and others to watch 3D? They need to be stopped! I like 3D. I hope it is here to stay. But I have lived through a couple of 3D fads and I know this one will fade away like the other times.
 
2013-01-12 10:07:13 AM

AtlanticCoast63: RELEASE THE FARKING MOVIE, ALREADY.


i130.photobucket.com

Tell me about the glands
 
2013-01-12 10:08:32 AM
bborchar: I had the exact opposite reaction. I *HATE* 3D, it always makes me nauseous because I feel like I have to work to see it (I do get motion sickness very easily). I decided to give The Hobbit a try, and I was absolutely blown away. It fixed everything I ever hated about 3D, and it was extremely immersive. I know some people complained about the clarity taking them out of the movie experience, but it definitely enhanced it for me. I saw a ton of things that I never saw in the two 2D viewings I watched before. I definitely will not see any 3D films that don't have the HFR now. I really hope that some of the negativity surrounding this particular movie doesn't keep filmmakers from experimenting with it- I think we could get some extremely interesting and wonderful results.

Wanted to add that 3D shouldn't just be "tacked on" to a movie, though. It has to be shot with the full intention of making it 3D, so that all of the camera angles, color and action are done correctly. Otherwise it becomes a huge jumbled mess.

/don't think I could stand the rampant use of lens flare in 3D
 
2013-01-12 10:20:45 AM

wildstarr: Type40: 3D is incredibly annoying and I hope it will go away soon. In my experience it doesn't add anything to a movie and even leads to some annoying camera angles that are there just for the 3D.

Who are these evil people that are forcing you and others to watch 3D? They need to be stopped! I like 3D. I hope it is here to stay. But I have lived through a couple of 3D fads and I know this one will fade away like the other times.


Ok, I am not being forced, but I want to see movies like Star Trek in the Cinema and 2D is not always available, especialy here in Cyprus.
 
2013-01-12 10:28:17 AM
Saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre last night in 3D. Visually stunning yes, worth the money and headache? No.

Enough with the 3D please. Or I'll stop going to the movies altogether.
 
2013-01-12 10:29:51 AM

Type40: wildstarr: Type40: 3D is incredibly annoying and I hope it will go away soon. In my experience it doesn't add anything to a movie and even leads to some annoying camera angles that are there just for the 3D.

Who are these evil people that are forcing you and others to watch 3D? They need to be stopped! I like 3D. I hope it is here to stay. But I have lived through a couple of 3D fads and I know this one will fade away like the other times.

Ok, I am not being forced, but I want to see movies like Star Trek in the Cinema and 2D is not always available, especialy here in Cyprus.


FTFA: The wonderful thing about 3D these days is that fans are still given a choice. You can see Star Trek Into Darkness in 2D if you like.

I don't have a choice where I live, so I've opted to not see The Hobbit, and I guess I won't be seeing Star Trek 2, either.
 
2013-01-12 10:35:15 AM

cxjohn: Saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre last night in 3D. Visually stunning yes, worth the money and headache? No.

Enough with the 3D please. Or I'll stop going to the movies altogether.


You must mean Texas Chainsaw 3D,the viewing of which cancels the veracity of any commentary about it, positive or negative.
 
2013-01-12 10:51:25 AM

ModernLuddite: Type40: wildstarr: Type40: 3D is incredibly annoying and I hope it will go away soon. In my experience it doesn't add anything to a movie and even leads to some annoying camera angles that are there just for the 3D.

Who are these evil people that are forcing you and others to watch 3D? They need to be stopped! I like 3D. I hope it is here to stay. But I have lived through a couple of 3D fads and I know this one will fade away like the other times.

Ok, I am not being forced, but I want to see movies like Star Trek in the Cinema and 2D is not always available, especialy here in Cyprus.

FTFA: The wonderful thing about 3D these days is that fans are still given a choice. You can see Star Trek Into Darkness in 2D if you like.

I don't have a choice where I live, so I've opted to not see The Hobbit, and I guess I won't be seeing Star Trek 2, either.


Hate to say it but the Hobbit was great, worth putting up with the 3D for.
 
2013-01-12 11:02:51 AM

Type40: In my experience it doesn't add anything to a movie


$5 to the ticket price, making it easier to inflate your box office numbers
 
2013-01-12 11:34:27 AM

Lost Thought 00: $5 to the ticket price, making it easier to inflate your box office numbers


I believe the industry has stated that they are going to do away with the 3D surcharge. Good news, right? Nope. Instead of dropping the surcharge they are going to raise the price on 2D movies so everything costs the same.
 
2013-01-12 11:39:40 AM
i151.photobucket.com

3D films obviously suck.

i151.photobucket.com

/they do give me headaches
 
2013-01-12 11:41:55 AM

T-Servo: [i151.photobucket.com image 214x317]

3D films obviously suck.

[i151.photobucket.com image 610x401]

/they do give me headaches


Gahhhh!
 
2013-01-12 11:55:14 AM
This past xmas while I was at an electronics store there was a 3d tv set up to try. You could change the channels between an animated movie (Ice Age 3 or 4), a 3d movie (some space thriller), and a soccer game. The animated movie looked good in 3D. The space movie made me dizzy. And the soccer game almost looked fake. I wont be in the market anytime soon, TV or movie ticket wise.
 
ecl
2013-01-12 12:02:50 PM

bborchar: Wayne 985: I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D and really regret it. The film was great, but looked visually like a pop-up book. For example, Gandalf would be flat and "projected" ahead of Bilbo in a simple dialogue scene. It became a distraction.

I had the exact opposite reaction. I *HATE* 3D, it always makes me nauseous because I feel like I have to work to see it (I do get motion sickness very easily). I decided to give The Hobbit a try, and I was absolutely blown away. It fixed everything I ever hated about 3D, and it was extremely immersive. I know some people complained about the clarity taking them out of the movie experience, but it definitely enhanced it for me. I saw a ton of things that I never saw in the two 2D viewings I watched before. I definitely will not see any 3D films that don't have the HFR now. I really hope that some of the negativity surrounding this particular movie doesn't keep filmmakers from experimenting with it- I think we could get some extremely interesting and wonderful results.


I saw it in 3d and 3dHFR and I thought the HFR made some of the scenes look goofy and sped up, kinda cartoonish. Particularly the Shire scenes looked better in regular 3d IMHO. Smaugs eye at the end looked amazing in HFR though.
 
2013-01-12 12:18:47 PM
img2u.info
"Oh my god! The lens flares are coming straight at us!"
 
2013-01-12 12:23:42 PM
Well, in that case, I'll probably be seeing it on Blu-Ray, then.

I don't hate 3D, but it's one of those things that I have an occassional taste for, and it's got to be done really well (like Avatar). I've been to a bunch with my kids, and got little from being in 3D.

Now, if the studio give me a 2D option, I'll take it. If you're going to try to force me to pay for 3D (at 3D prices), I won't pay cinema prices.
 
2013-01-12 12:28:11 PM
Saw the trailer for ST before The Hobbit and it looked good. Didn't care much for The Hobbit for various reasons. Most 3d movies have (IMO) substituted good movie making for scenes that they can use the 3D for.
 
2013-01-12 12:33:20 PM

Whodat: Didn't care much for The Hobbit for various reasons.


Was it the hobbits?  Because honestly, they are what is wrong with the entire story.
 
2013-01-12 01:39:07 PM
Here's what I like about 3D movies, even when I watch them in 2D. 3D is ending the shaky-cam reign of terror. You can't do shaky-cam and 3D if you want the 3D to work. You have to choose, and that means more and more films actually hold the damn camera still so we can see what's on the screen. Even films that do post 3D aren't relying on annoying shaky-cam. I like being able to actually see the action on the screen.

Soon, I hope the shaky-cam trend dies out completely. Now get off my lawn so I can go yell at that cloud.
 
2013-01-12 01:40:32 PM
Every time I come to these threads all I read is about how people hate 3D. It presents the illusion that it is some kind of mass consensus when really it's just the same hand full of loud opinionated farkers I see everywhere else on this dwindling website.

The good old American home boys that complain about how pretensions everybody is and how hip and edgy everyone ELSE is TRYING to be.

But not them. NO. They believe they are the heart and soul of this awesome country and if you don't like guns, strippers, and Dave Grohl than you have no business commenting or giving your opinion here.
 
2013-01-12 01:42:31 PM
Another FARK thread where the wussies complain about 3D.

I think its more of being out of the basement into different air and being around actual people that cause most of the headaches and nausea for them.

/last headache I got from 3D was the stupid IMAX glasses pinching the sides of my head
 
2013-01-12 03:10:56 PM
Hobbit did not need to be made in 3D, it just made all the modelled scenes look like viewmaster reels.

As for JJ Abrams Star Trek fanfiction. I'll watch that when its on TV. Last one sucked so bad its killed my desire to see anything from his fanfiction universe.
 
2013-01-12 03:12:37 PM

peterthx: Another FARK thread where the wussies complain about 3D.


I've always thought the argument about 3D should be more about being against 3D being applied solely in post-production or 3D applied as a gimmick rather than increasing visual depth. The "I hate 3D because it makes my tummy hurt, therefore it is of no value to anyone else" crowd can fark right off.  If it's not your thing, fine, but don't piss and moan and act like you're speaking for everyone else just because you become Wendell at every minor camera movement.
 
2013-01-12 03:24:03 PM

FeedTheCollapse: peterthx: Another FARK thread where the wussies complain about 3D.

I've always thought the argument about 3D should be more about being against 3D being applied solely in post-production or 3D applied as a gimmick rather than increasing visual depth.


There's also mjbok's point about studios using 3D as an excuse to price-gouge even 2D showings.
 
2013-01-12 03:28:15 PM

FeedTheCollapse: peterthx: Another FARK thread where the wussies complain about 3D.

I've always thought the argument about 3D should be more about being against 3D being applied solely in post-production or 3D applied as a gimmick rather than increasing visual depth. The "I hate 3D because it makes my tummy hurt, therefore it is of no value to anyone else" crowd can fark right off.  If it's not your thing, fine, but don't piss and moan and act like you're speaking for everyone else just because you become Wendell at every minor camera movement.


Well, you nailed the whole mess pretty succinctly, but I'd add one more thing: A lot of the complaint is the same sort of complaints we saw when HDTV hit. There will always be a slight bias towards "what we are used to". The best example I can think of is Dolby Noise Reduction and Dynamic Expansion on audio cassettes; due to the more compressed audio when the Dolby-B was switched off, some stubborn listeners would decry it as a sham that took advantage of so-called audiophiles, when in reality, the music had the same dB, with a larger dynamic range (plus the hiss was gone). I imagine there were people who still clung to the misconception by the time CDs had superseded cassettes in the mainstream.

Who needed CDs?

Who needed DVDs?

Who needed HDTVs?

Who needed Blu-Ray?

It always takes a while for things to become mainstream, and only then can we take a serious look at the merits of a technology and if the new tech has been applied correctly by content producers. 3D has been around for ages.... as a gimmick. Only in the last 5 years has it come on strong with a push into the mainstream. Like Jackson's push into HFR, though, there is a significant number of people who suffer cognitive problems watching, which may prevent it from ever becoming as pervasive as other technologies I've mentioned.
 
2013-01-12 03:31:37 PM

T-Servo: FeedTheCollapse: peterthx: Another FARK thread where the wussies complain about 3D.

I've always thought the argument about 3D should be more about being against 3D being applied solely in post-production or 3D applied as a gimmick rather than increasing visual depth.

There's also mjbok's point about studios using 3D as an excuse to price-gouge even 2D showings.


I haven't seen that. I think the price difference between 2D and 3D showings is $2 per ticket, and no price difference between the 2D showing and other films not available in 3D. If your local cinema is doing that, don't go. Eventually they'll get the message.

With today's home theater technology, cinemas should be more keen to deliver a good, all-round experience for their patrons, and not try and gouge them, lest they will go out of business very quickly. My own set up is nice enough that we tend to only go to "must see" movies or for special things like IMAX.
 
2013-01-12 03:54:09 PM
3D is cool and all, but the problem is that a movie has to either be shot from the beginning in 3D, or has to be an animated flick. I've watched a few in 3D, and the kids' movies have been the actual good ones, since it's pretty easy to digitally manipulate the images at any time. Otherwise, you have bullshiat like they used in Clash of the Titans, where they inserta few flashy 3D scenes and call it done(Such as the coin being tossed to Charon). I would have liked to see Avatar in 3D, but at the time, someone told me that the 3D wasn't 'that impressive', so I missed out.

The Hobbit would have been nice. The experimented with entirely new processes for shooting 3D on that one, but I just didn't have the extra cash at the time.

The other problem is the farking glasses. So far I've seen 2 styles, the ones that look like a pair of Ray-Bans, and the Real3D ones that are boxy, and the earpieces don't fold down. (There are the active glasses for the home, but I'm talking theater). The Ray-Ban style ones are OK, they don't weigh too much, and the fit well. The problem with the boxier Real3D ones is that they sit farther away from your face(I think to make the 'one size' really 'ft all'), and as a result, you see light reflecting off of your face and forehead, which washes out the picture a little, and can also be distracting in some scenes.

3D is cool, and I'd rather have it on my TV than voice controls or gesture based controls. As a matter of fact, it came free with my TV, I just don't use it. The problem is that as cool as the tech is, the people implementing it don't know what they're doing, and it usually becomes more of a distraction than a benefit.
 
2013-01-12 03:57:14 PM

LesserEvil: I haven't seen that. I think the price difference between 2D and 3D showings is $2 per ticket, and no price difference between the 2D showing and other films not available in 3D. If your local cinema is doing that, don't go. Eventually they'll get the message.

With today's home theater technology, cinemas should be more keen to deliver a good, all-round experience for their patrons, and not try and gouge them, lest they will go out of business very quickly. My own set up is nice enough that we tend to only go to "must see" movies or for special things like IMAX.


I agree, but I've seen the price creep in Canada, where you pay an extra $3 for 3D or for digital projection ("UltraAVX"), meaning before long all the prices will be equal to 3D. Since I get digital from my own HDTV/Blu-Ray set at home (plus don't have annoying people beside me talking on their phone), it means we don't go out much. If it easily costs $40 for Mrs Servo and I to see one movie +popcorn, we'd just as well wait a few months and buy the Blu-Ray. 3D doesn't excite me enough to make the difference.
 
2013-01-12 03:59:32 PM

T-Servo: FeedTheCollapse: peterthx: Another FARK thread where the wussies complain about 3D.

I've always thought the argument about 3D should be more about being against 3D being applied solely in post-production or 3D applied as a gimmick rather than increasing visual depth.

There's also mjbok's point about studios using 3D as an excuse to price-gouge even 2D showings.


well, that one too. Though that's not inherently 3D's fault.
 
2013-01-12 04:26:45 PM

fisker: Every time I come to these threads all I read is about how people hate 3D. It presents the illusion that it is some kind of mass consensus when really it's just the same hand full of loud opinionated farkers I see everywhere else on this dwindling website.

The good old American home boys that complain about how pretensions everybody is and how hip and edgy everyone ELSE is TRYING to be.

But not them. NO. They believe they are the heart and soul of this awesome country and if you don't like guns, strippers, and Dave Grohl than you have no business commenting or giving your opinion here.


I don't understand people who get emotional about trends.  I also don't understand people who get emotional about those people.
 
2013-01-12 06:05:50 PM

Wayne 985: I saw The Hobbit in IMAX 3D and really regret it. The film was great, but looked visually like a pop-up book. For example, Gandalf would be flat and "projected" ahead of Bilbo in a simple dialogue scene. It became a distraction.


I felt the same. In some scenes I thought it was okay - the flight of the eagles, the goblin battle, and Rivendell for example. And just okay, not awe-inspiring or anything, it just wasn't awful.

But where it was bad was where it involved a tight, still shot of the face because it became Viewmaster - one flat thing in front of a background or another flat thing. It was distracting to the point it brought me out of the movie. If they can reduce that effect, I might think 3D is worth it.
 
2013-01-12 06:25:41 PM

LesserEvil: It always takes a while for things to become mainstream, and only then can we take a serious look at the merits of a technology and if the new tech has been applied correctly by content producers. 3D has been around for ages.... as a gimmick. Only in the last 5 years has it come on strong with a push into the mainstream. Like Jackson's push into HFR, though, there is a significant number of people who suffer cognitive problems watching, which may prevent it from ever becoming as pervasive as other technologies I've mentioned.


From The Independent

Take Pixar, for example, who have released three 3D movies since 2010. When Toy Story 3 came out in 2010 it was the year's highest-grossing movie, with 72% of the gross coming from audiences choosing to watch it in 3D. This was followed by Cars 2 in 2011, which broke the studio's streak of critical successes, and saw 3D viewings contributing to only 40% of opening weekend revenue. Pixar's latest offering, Brave, was viewed in 3D by only 32% of the total cinema audience. This decline in 3D revenue is not just limited to a single studio. Despite the number of 3D films being released increasing by 75%, revenue for 3D movies dropped by $400 million between 2010 and 2011.

People are bored with it. They always get bored with it. It comes around every generation as a fad and then passes. The studios have really pushed it this time as a way to raise revenue, and off the back of Avatar, but people get to the point of saying "yeah, thanks, but I'll just take 2D".
 
2013-01-12 06:52:14 PM

ModernLuddite: I don't have a choice where I live, so I've opted to not see The Hobbit, and I guess I won't be seeing Star Trek 2, either.


You do. Close one eye.

Or put the same filter in front of both eyes. DIY with two pairs of glasses or buy some from Hank Green: 2D glasses
 
2013-01-12 06:52:32 PM
Didn't we have a thread a couple of days ago that proclaimed 3D was dead?
 
2013-01-12 08:20:01 PM

LesserEvil: I haven't seen that. I think the price difference between 2D and 3D showings is $2 per ticket, and no price difference between the 2D showing and other films not available in 3D. If your local cinema is doing that, don't go. Eventually they'll get the message.


There's nothing definitive about it, but it has been discussed by theater chains. Options included dropping 3D premium charge and leaving 2D where it is (not going to happen), dropping to a mid point between what is currently 3D and 2D pricing (possible), or raising 2D to 3D prices with 3D staying the same (most likely.)
 
2013-01-12 09:51:33 PM
But 3D lensflare!!
 
2013-01-12 09:59:25 PM
Don't matter. I will not pay one cent to see JJ Abrams perversion of Star Trek. Trek is dead to me now.
 
2013-01-12 11:01:47 PM

LesserEvil:
Well, you nailed the whole mess pretty succinctly, but I'd add one more thing: A lot of the complaint is the same sort of complaints we saw when HDTV hit. There will always be a slight bias towards "what we are used to".


I don't think it's really an apt comparison. HDTV was a dramatic improvement over Standard Definition and it was widely recognized as such. There may have been some who didn't appreciate the difference, but I don't recall anyone complaining about it at all.

3D doesn't really offer any kind of improvement quality wise. It just reinforces the depth our eyes already perceive. I don't have a problem with viewing it, nor does it bother me if a film is only playing in 3D but there is a significant portion of the population that has trouble watching 3D. Not to mention those who are physically incapable.

So where HD was a natural step forward in the evolution in viewing quality, 3D is just a detour along he way.
 
2013-01-13 12:29:27 AM
I have a 3D monitor for my computer but I rarely use the 3D function. Sometimes it can be a good thing, a movie like Piranha 3D or Jackass 3D is improved cause the 3D is part of the joke of the movie and you're missing part of the fun without it. Most movies though, it's just annoying and not worth the bother. Some video games can do 3D well too; I found Portal 2 easier in 3D for some reason; maybe because it's a spatial puzzle to begin with.  But those usually aren't worth the bother either.

I saw the first nine minutes of Star Trek in 3D in front of The Hobbit and that 3D looked really well done, so it does seem encouraging. The Hobbit was a waste of effort though; just like a pop-up book and added nothing to the flick. I'd not choose to see that one again in that format. Didn't see the HFR version though, just regular IMAX 3D, so can't speak for how that looks.

I don't know, sometimes I can really enjoy 3D, and other times my brain can't seem to process it. I drink a lot too, and if you get cross-eyed, it's really not gonna happen.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report