Poll: Would you prefer to see a movie in 3D or 2D?

Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Argus Skyhawk, Jun 3, 2011.

?

Would you prefer to see a movie in 3D or 2D?

  1. 3D

    8 vote(s)
    5.8%
  2. 2D

    105 vote(s)
    75.5%
  3. No Preference

    2 vote(s)
    1.4%
  4. Depends upon the movie

    24 vote(s)
    17.3%
  1. Rarewolf

    Rarewolf Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Location:
    Devon, England
    It's never bothered me in the slightest.
     
  2. 1001001

    1001001 I Like the Beats and the Shouting Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    People's Gaypublic of Drugafornia
    Me neither.

    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.

    :shrug:
     
  3. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    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.
     
  4. Bob The Skutter

    Bob The Skutter Complete Arse Cleft Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Location:
    This island Earth
    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.
     
  5. cultcross

    cultcross The truth is precisely the opposite Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    cultcross
    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.
     
  6. Bob The Skutter

    Bob The Skutter Complete Arse Cleft Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Location:
    This island Earth
    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.
     
  7. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    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.
     
  8. Owain Taggart

    Owain Taggart Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Ontario, Canada
    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.
     
  9. FPAlpha

    FPAlpha Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    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.
     
  10. Savage Dragon

    Savage Dragon Savage Mod Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    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.
     
  11. cultcross

    cultcross The truth is precisely the opposite Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Location:
    cultcross
    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.
     
  12. Savage Dragon

    Savage Dragon Savage Mod Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    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.
     
  13. TheMurph

    TheMurph Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Location:
    TN
    Another one for the 2D. Just not worth the extra money in my opinion.
     
  14. Mr Pointy Ears

    Mr Pointy Ears Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Location:
    Adelaide,australia
  15. Santa Garrus

    Santa Garrus Calibrating the Holidays Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Location:
    LeadHead
    Depends on the movie for me. Not that much of a selling point for me.
     
  16. Melakon

    Melakon Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Location:
    Melakon's grave
    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.
     
  17. Savage Dragon

    Savage Dragon Savage Mod Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    3D is lost on my sister too. She has about 80% loss of vision in her left eye.
     
  18. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    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.
     
  19. Bob The Skutter

    Bob The Skutter Complete Arse Cleft Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Location:
    This island Earth
    Digital animation are the films that do it best, for the most part.