Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Argus Skyhawk, Jun 3, 2011.
It's never bothered me in the slightest.
I'm surprised to see the results so skewed. I guess I'm in more of a minority than I realized.
I love 3D films, especially at the IMAX. Seeing The Hobbit there was incredible.
I understand not every movie needs 3D, but if I have a choice, I'll take 3D every time.
I don't go to the movies, and I don't have (or want) a 3D TV. My wife can't SEE 3D because of the differential in her prescription between her eyes. 3D can be fun and interesting occasionally, but I don't care for it as a steady diet.
No, it doesn't really matter as long as you can choose which you see, though actually in someways yes it does, because if you have 2 and 3d showings you end up having fewer screens for films to play on so you're likely to miss a film because there's no space in the cinema for them.
Yeah that irritates me - and it's been used to artificially inflate the uptake of 3D in the UK as it will be reported that, say, 60% of cinema goers 'chose' the 3D version with all the information about showtimes and number of screenings stripped away.
Yep, and for films like Dredd there were no showings in 2D unless the cinema had no 3D capability at all, and there were very few of them that got the film.
It irritates me and I get 3D films at no extra cost.
It really depends on the film. A film designed to be a visual spectacle I'd rather watch in 3d, but a film that's more of a drama I'd much rather watch in 2d.
And if it was originally filmed in 2d, there's no excuse to make it 3d.
For instance, I think films like The Hobbit and Hugo worked in 3d. But putting Great Gatsby in 3d is just plain ridiculous.
I realize I already voted for 2D, but I think 3D has made leaps since I originally voted and I think there are many movies putting 3D to better use. So, I'd say, if a movie were designed for 3D in mind, right down to the cinematography, then I'd take it over 2D, but those are a few compared to those that are not. Avatar, Tintin, and Life of Pi are what I considered to have the best use of 3D.
Since I have a limited budget for going to the movies, I choose not to go to conversions. However, what I've noticed about theatres is they'll often squeeze out 2D, making 3D the only option. For example, when I finally got around to seeing Ironman 3, despite the fact that I didn't want to see it in 3D, I never had the choice, and the 3D wasn't very good in that.
I'm actively looking for 2D movie versions even going so far as to see the movie on smaller screens than the main theater showings.
I get slight headaches after 2 hours of 3D, i certainly don't like the added costs and most important of all i just don't see that big of a difference.
The 3D reference movie Avatar just looks basically the same to me and i don't know if it's my subconscious telling me so or if it's reality.
So far i haven't seen any reason where this was really needed or somehow contributed to my enjoyment of the movie or the feel of it.
I'm normally not a 3D kind of guy but I went to see Star Trek Into Darkness at the Lincoln Square IMAX and I have to say it was probably the most enjoyable 3D movie experience I have had to date.
The picture was much brighter than previous 3D movies I have seen and I don't know if it was because the movie was actually shot in IMAX 3D but the 3D looked great to me. The space scenes especially had a lot of extra depth to my eye. If this is what I can expect from movies shot in IMAX 3D then I will certainly keep seeing them.
An added bonus was that the 3D glasses were much bigger than ones I've used in the past and the frames didn't interfere with my field of vision.
The thing I noticed about ST:ID which was different to most 3D films is that I wasn't constantly thinking 'this 3D is distracting/weird/giving me a headache'. But on the other hand, I only noticed the effect of it three times - the arrows at the beginning, in the debris field as Kirk flies through it, and in the end credits. So maybe it was just that the effect was barely used, or was done much more subtly than usual.
The debris filed scene was definitely a standout for me too. It's really what made me go "Wow, this is great 3D". But I agree, the rest of the 3D was pretty subtle.
Another one for the 2D. Just not worth the extra money in my opinion.
Depends on the movie for me. Not that much of a selling point for me.
I've worn glasses for over 50 years, and 3d never worked well for me. Now I'm partially blind in one eye, so it's not even a choice. I think the last 3d movie I saw was that Friday the 13th III. That's how much I care about 3d.
3D is lost on my sister too. She has about 80% loss of vision in her left eye.
It is true that most movies that are 3d don't do 3d well. They seem more like flat faces at different distances from you than actual 3d figures. But I think Hugo, Avatar, Toy Story 3 all did 3D very well.
I certainly like 3D better than that 48 FPS stuff they did in The Hobbit.
Digital animation are the films that do it best, for the most part.
Separate names with a comma.