Anyone else go OUT OF THEIR way to find a 2D Version of a movie?

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

I have because as an avid movie fan I pray for the day when 3D collapses like it did in the 1950’s and 1980’s. The fact is some people just don’t like it and I’m one of them.

I remember a ticket agent try and talk me out of going to FINAL DESTINATION 4 because it was in 2D.

]The problem is its getting harder and harder to find a cinema showing 2D versions of certain movies. I missed MY SOUL TO TAKE entirely because I couldn’t find a 2D screen here in Albany the capitol of New York]

I really, really want to see the Cameron film SANCTUM but I don’t want it “ruined” in 3D but I have a feeling its going to be hard to find a 2D

Anyone else try to avoid 3D when possible

 

[trekkiebaggio]

I did yesterday. I don't hate 3D but unless the whole film is in 3D I'd rather just see a 2D movie, I don't think I miss out on too much. Yesterday I went to see the new Narnia film and they only had one 2D showing whereas they had multiple 3D showings.

It would have been easier for me going a bit earlier in the day but I just thought why should I pay a bit extra to see a few things leap out at me.

 

[Brent]

YES, I do not like 3D Movies. Many aspects bother me, the glasses make the movie darker, I find it harder to focus and I feel like I am straining more to watch it and focus on the right things, and its kind of annoying.

I prefer to watch 2D movies.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know about "out of my way," but there was one instance where I went to the theater to see a film (I think it was Toy Story 3) and changed my mind when I saw they only had it in 3D (well, that and the fact that I was probably too late to avoid missing the opening).

The thing is, I have distorted vision in my left eye, so 3D doesn't work for me. I had my vision tested recently for new glasses, and they tested my stereoscopic vision by giving me 3D lenses and a card with maybe 8 different pictures of two circles, asking me which circle seemed to be elevated above the card in each one. I was only able to see the 3D effect in the first one, which I assume was the one with the most pronounced effect.

I suppose if there were only a 3D version available, I could live with it and maybe perceive some of the effect. But I gather the ticket prices are higher for 3D films, so that's a reason to avoid them.

 

[Trent Roman]

Out of my way? No. I'm not much of a cinema person in the first place, so if a film I'm curious about is only playing in 3D at the local cineplex, I'll just stay home. I'll see it eventually in my living room.

Unfortunately, many 3D films are pretty annoying even in 2D. Granted, without the glasses there's no pain, but I recently saw the most recent "Journey to the Center of the Earth," and there were many groan-worthy moments of objects in the foreground and forced perspectives clearly meant to be 'kewl' in 3D. Looking forward to the death of this fad; rather surprised it hasn't happened already, given the broadly-reputed excreable quality of 3D not accomplished through dedicated cameras.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No. I like the 3D movies I've seen just fine. This ain't going away any time soon.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm not a fan of converted 3-D. It seems to be an obvious grab at my buck and doesn't really add to the picture, Alice in Wonderland, for example. It wasn't conceived in 3D, and there was VERY little added to it. Didn't help the movie was crap too.

I would rather stick with native 3D films, like Avatar.

 

[Random_Spock]

I'm not a fan of converted 3-D. It seems to be an obvious grab at my buck and doesn't really add to the picture, Alice in Wonderland, for example. It wasn't conceived in 3D, and there was VERY little added to it. Didn't help the movie was crap too.

I would rather stick with native 3D films, like Avatar.

Me neither. It's just a waste of time. Heck I didn't mind seeing Avatar in 2D myself -- and the only film I did see in 3D was Toy Story 3 and to be honest, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if I'd seen it in 2D.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Mutara Nebula, as a former Capital District resident, I feel for you. There aren't nearly as many options as there are here in Queens. I saw the new Narnia flick last weekend and went out of my way to find a non-3D presentation. I generally try to avoid 3D, unless I think that, somehow, the effect could add to the film (Avatar & Tron, for example). On the whole, though, I remain thoroughly unimpressed with the current 3D tech -- it's way too gimmicky. I feel like I'm watching one of those old stereo-vision "pop up" books that were such a fad in the 90s.

 

[SG-17]

The only 3D film that I saw was Jackass 3D. While the Jackass part was awesome, the 3D not so much.

I do try to avoid 3D, for one it is a pointless gimmick that adds nothing real to the experience, and two the tickets cost twice as damn much as seeing a film in digital (IE a digital projector rather than actual film).

 

[Owain Taggart]

Unless I feel a movie is truly worth it seeing in 3D, like say, Avatar, then yeah, I'd rather just see the 2D version. I'm not entirely sure I want to see Tron Legacy in 3D and I'm not entirely sure what the point of showing Dawn Treader in 3D.

 

[Garak]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

3D is worse than AIDS.

 

[Brikar99]

I've never had to go out of my way in the sense of having to actively try and find some other theatre that was showing a movie in 2D. That is, the theatre always seems to have a 2D showing for me to choose instead. But In the sense of avoiding 3D screenings... I do that all the time.

 

[Captain Craig]

I don't know about out of my way. I have two cinemas that are about 15-20min away in either direction. If one has the film in 2D I'm more likely to see that. The exaggerated cost for 10min of cumulated things in 3D is not worth it to me.

If I can I'll see Thor in 2D given the option. Summer is when I imagine the screens will start clogging up with 3D options like we've never seen to date.

 

[scnj]

No. I pay £13.50 a month for unlimited movies at Cineworld, so if they've only got it in 3D, I'll suck it up and see it in 3D.

I find it tolerable to an extent anyway, so it's no big deal for me.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I paid good money for laser eye surgery so that I would never have to wear glasses again.

You think I'd pay more money just for the privilege of having to wear glasses again, you're crazy. So yes, I think the whole 3D fad is just crazy, a waste of time. If I want to see entertainment in 3D, I'll go to the theatre and watch a play.

 

[RoJoHen]

I've never had to go out of my way, as all the theaters around here are big enough to have plenty of both 2D and 3D showings.

 

[theenglish]

I think that there is a big difference between a movie being conceived in 3D and converted. I will look at information about a movie I want to see and if it was planned in 3D then that is the version I will see. Cameron did an excellent job with Avatar--the 3D really made the world come alive for me.

 

[theenglish]

I paid good money for laser eye surgery so that I would never have to wear glasses again.

You think I'd pay more money just for the privilege of having to wear glasses again, you're crazy. So yes, I think the whole 3D fad is just crazy, a waste of time. If I want to see entertainment in 3D, I'll go to the theatre and watch a play.

This should be a tagline on all promotions for live theatre... "Now in 3D!"

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

This should be a tagline on all promotions for live theatre... "Now in 3D!"

With no glasses necessary!

I don't know about going out of my way, but when my wife and I went with her brother's family to see Narnia last Friday, we intentionally chose the 2D showing. The local multiplex was showing both versions.