It was just a joke. I'm in a sarcastic mood today.
Trekkies hate jokes. If Gene Roddenberry didn't use jokes, no one can.
Why Are Trekkies Against 3D?
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
Trekkies hate jokes. If Gene Roddenberry didn't use jokes, no one can.
It was just a joke. I'm in a sarcastic mood today.
Trekkies hate jokes. If Gene Roddenberry didn't use jokes, no one can.
Action movies with things flying around and blowing up would more likely benefit from 3D.
I'd rather the next movie was in 3D and certainly hope it will be. It's unlikely that Paramount would release a tentpole film this expensive in 2D only, anyway - 3D is not going away, this time, for reasons structural to the business.
It really upsets you that everyone isn't on board the 3d train.
^ it's not a matter if being upset or not, he has a point. It's hear to stay this time. Thankfully a glassesless version is in the pipeline, as us super hi-def. The new technology will keep on coming. It's up to film makers to use it wisely.
Orly?
Colour. Was it confined just to the movie industry? of course not. Can you imagine television without colour? And computer monitors too.
Likewise, 3D is a technology that can be just as important. Imagine a computer display where the windows you aren't using appear to be further back than the active window. Words don';t have to be a different colour to have attention drawn to them. they can jkump forwards to get your attention. And imagine how cool the bloody screensavers would be! That flying through space would look awesome!
3D is not a technology that is limited to movies. Once it becomes possible to have 3D that doesn't require glasses, it won't be long before it is on everything from mobile phones to watches. Everything that currently uses a LCD display, down to the humble digital watch, will be using a 3D display.
And imagine how much easier it would be if you navman could show you a 3D image of where you need to go.
Sounds like you won't be satisfied with anything less than a holodeck.
The #1 reason why 'Trekkies are against 3D'
If it has to be 3D, it better bloody well be 3D, not some gimmick on a screen that you have to wear glasses for.
Personally, I can't stand the stuff. I spent a half a family car on my eyes last year, laser eye surgery so I wouldn't have to wear glasses again.
If you think I'm going to do so just to watch a shitty movie where the effects outweigh the storyline, you're dreaming. I tried it at home recently with the old anaglyph style whatsits... Red and blue lenses with a 3D DVD that I got for free. I also got a headache and eyestrain for free. What I didn't get was any realistic form of 3D effect, just a film that seemed blurry, in double vision, and alternating Blue and Red for the duration.
If I want to watch 3D, I'll go to the theatre and watch a play.
I also prefer to watch all of my movies in black and white, mono sound, and full frame. All that other gimmicky bullshit is just there to make it more expensive. Widescreen, what a shyte! Black bars everywhere on my 1000 line apple monitor. Ruins the entire experience. I also can't stand color in movies. It doesn't add ANYTHING to the story, and I'm colorblind, too. I hope that fad goes away, too.
Red and blue lenses are not state of the art. You need red and green lenses.
From what little I've read about 3D, anaglyph or otherwise, people with one eye more dominant than the other aren't going to have a positive viewing experience. How many people have uneven vision. It's a significant enough fraction for the whole 3D thing to never be more than a gimmick.
Every forum I go on now, regardless of the what the forum is about, generally has a 'whinge about 3D' thread alive and kicking. Disgruntlement with the technology, the backlash against the surcharge applied by theatres is not going to go away.
Every forum I go on now, regardless of the what the forum is about, generally has a 'whinge about 3D' thread alive and kicking. Disgruntlement with the technology, the backlash against the surcharge applied by theatres is not going to go away.
You will find a "blu ray sucks" thread on every board, too.
How many "Star Trek 2009 sucks" thread exist on this board? And are they representative of the majority?
Yeah, but which is the majority and which is the minority when it comes to 3D.
Cinema figures don't mean jack in this case, especially as here in the UK, 3D showings are pretty much the only option you have. If you want to see a 2D projection, you have to lump it and wait for the Blu-ray. The true answer will come over time, and we'll see if 3D audiences decline as they get tired of the gimmick, or if they increase as it finally, finally catches on.
I'll bet on a decline. And as the sales of physical media will also decline. Who is going to buy the 2D DVD of a film that sucked in 3D? Hollywood is going to find that they've dead ended themselves into another recession.
Cinema figures don't mean jack in this case, especially as here in the UK, 3D showings are pretty much the only option you have. If you want to see a 2D projection, you have to lump it and wait for the Blu-ray. The true answer will come over time, and we'll see if 3D audiences decline as they get tired of the gimmick, or if they increase as it finally, finally catches on.
I'll bet on a decline. And as the sales of physical media will also decline. Who is going to buy the 2D DVD of a film that sucked in 3D? Hollywood is going to find that they've dead ended themselves into another recession.
I thought 3D adds nothing to the story, so what difference does it make if it sucks in 2D or 3D? Hence the question is: "Who is going to buy a DVD of a film that sucked?"
Yeah, but it's my opinion that since Dances with Smurfs, 3D has been used to cloak the suckage of films. People think they are great in the cinema when CG has whizzed past them, then six months later, they get the 2D experience on disc, and the excitement deflates like a moist fart.
Yeah, Avatar's shitty story was masked by all the "tech-citement" around the 3D.
I really wouldn't compare this innovation to color either. Color is the natural way we see things and was the natural progression of the tech. Moreover, it was something almost everyone could agree that they wanted. Now, you may be thinking to argue that we see in 3D, too, so it should follow that we would want our movies to be in 3D. Well, that's just wrong. When we watch a 2D image, our brains apply the third dimension to it without needing the technology to help us out. And maybe 25% of people actually want things to be in the new faux-3D.
And I stand by my earlier statement that this is a technology that is solely limited to the entertainment industry (not just the film industry as I stated earlier, but there is little use for it beyond that).
As for comparing this tech to letterboxing, well, that's just ignorant. Letterboxing isn't even a technology, it's an aspect ratio. Some people prefer not to have the black bars and watch the movie in an altered 4:3 ratio, others enjoy it in its original form and can ignore the black bars.
EDIT: Also, I'm opposed entirely to the idea of holodecks. They would end society.
I really wouldn't compare this innovation to color either. Color is the natural way we see things and was the natural progression of the tech. Moreover, it was something almost everyone could agree that they wanted. Now, you may be thinking to argue that we see in 3D, too, so it should follow that we would want our movies to be in 3D. Well, that's just wrong. When we watch a 2D image, our brains apply the third dimension to it without needing the technology to help us out. And maybe 25% of people actually want things to be in the new faux-3D.
And I stand by my earlier statement that this is a technology that is solely limited to the entertainment industry (not just the film industry as I stated earlier, but there is little use for it beyond that).
As for comparing this tech to letterboxing, well, that's just ignorant. Letterboxing isn't even a technology, it's an aspect ratio. Some people prefer not to have the black bars and watch the movie in an altered 4:3 ratio, others enjoy it in its original form and can ignore the black bars.
EDIT: Also, I'm opposed entirely to the idea of holodecks. They would end society.
lolwut? When we watch a 2D image, we see a 2D image.
You can't tell what is suppose to be in the background and what you're suppose to be focusing on when looking at a 2D image?
The current 3D fad seems like nothing more than a reason to raise ticket prices. If it was this unique technological experience you wouldn't have 2D movies having a 3D effect slapped on them in post-production.
Last edited:
Similar threads
