Trek Trailer with OZ

^^^^^^
Or, the movie M*A*S*H, where they not only talk over each other, they do it quickly and there's often more than one funny thing being said by more than one character at the same time.

 

Human interaction is complicated and confusing.

 

Not in Star Trek.

 

Only for some fans.

 

JJ didn't want to 3d. JJ doesn't like 3d

NOBODY likes 3d

But the theaters get to charge 3 bucks more a ticket which makes studio execs LOVE 3d.

Face it, if the zombie sheep like masses would just go to the 2d screening 3d would go away.

I use to say 3d was just a fad, but we're 5 years into this mess of post conversion crap.

 

Actually, IIRC, there was a recent article, where JJ admits to feeling this way going in, but, having done it, he says he's now happy they pushed the 3D and he's happy with the results

 

We were robbed of the trailer, it didn't show!

Sure, our being at a (90% sold out) 9:45 am matinee for Oz probably had everything to do with it not screening but wasn't the teaser rated for General Audiences?

*checks* No, it's rated "Appropriate Audiences". That's what we get for trying to save a few dollars.

 

Not just that, but 3D does cut down on piracy.

 

No it doesn't. This would only be true if films were shown only in 3D. They aren't, and pirates don't care about quality.

 

Well, if someone actually wants to see the movie in 3D, they actually have to go to the theatre and pay to get in. Thereby cutting back on piracy, maybe not by much, but there is an effor being made.

 

3D succeeds because despite folks on the Internet confidently declaring that "nobody likes it" and that it has a plethora of unsolvable problems - "it gives me a headache! It's too dark! Blah blah blah..." millions of people enjoy it, choose the theaters that make it available and will pay a premium price to experience it.

And that's why it's not going away.

 

And so for the forseeable future we are stuck with 3d movies, Teen Mom and the Kardashians.

 

Also stuck with complaining trekkies on the Internet. They pretty much have to do it for free, though, since no one finds them in the main either as interesting as preggo teens or as attractive as Kris Jenner.

 

Dismissing criticism as a collective "internet voice" became irrelevant when everybody in the general public learnt to use the internet by around 2002.

3d movies do hurt my eyes and the effect doesn't even work for me properly. This isn't me complaining on the internet for no reason. It's a documented thing that actually happens to people.

 

Nope.

Calling the kind of reflexive kvetching that's endemic in fan communities on the web "criticism" is dignifying it unnecessarily. It's mostly a kind of group/herd behavior akin to people daily grumbling in the workplace.

As for the "it gives me headaches" thing - fine, movies don't work as well for the hearing and/or visually impaired either but that has never constituted sufficient reason for the commercial film industry to avoid improving the sound and picture of their offerings.

The simple truth is that once the current version of this technology was offered it created an audience more than extensive enough to justify the studios continuing to focus on it.

3D's not going away because people don't want it to - they'll pay a premium to see it. That's the fact you can't refute. End of story.

 

In fact 3D is more popular than ever, generally looks better than ever and is proliferating in theaters. It's taking longer to reach home screens, but I'm in the process of possibly getting a 60" 3D tv at the moment.

JJ likes 3D: "I approached it very cynically. And the fact is that we've been using techniques that haven't been used before in 3D. They've figured out things. They've made enough movies now with this new process that they can understand ways to eliminate some of these problems.

"Things like breaking shots into zones, 3D zones, using multiple virtual cameras. A lot of this has made me a believer, whereas before I was really against it… There's this myth that if you don't shoot the movie in 3D it doesn't look good. Actually, the opposite can be true."

RAMA

 

Yea, it's understandable it gives some folks headaches ortheir eyes can't properly focus the effects or what have you, and for those folks, there is 2D versions to watch. I just don't understand why people complain about 3D's existence. If it doesn't work for them or they can't enjoy it, why is it a problem or them that other people have the option?

Why not limit the complaints to their actual issue, rather then the existence in general of the option?

 

My problem is i wear glasses and having to wear 3d glass on top of them isn't really very comfortable.

 

Then you go to a 2D show if one is available. Problem solved.

I'm sure there are places where "there are no 3D showings available." Given the newness and the expense of the systems there certainly aren't many; the reverse is more likely to be true.

This isn't a failing in the 3D technology though. It works fine for people who can enjoy it.