I considered not starting this thread because I'm sure someone will just go "get with the times". My response is "---k 'em". So here we go.
I have nothing against 3-D. I was initially concerned that the recent 3-D seen in Avatar wouldn't work for me because my astigmatism prevented me from viewing the "color glasses" form of 3-D of films like Journey to the Center of the Earth. I went to see Avatar in 3-D and it worked fine except my eyes began watering if I watched more than 5 minutes at a time at which point I took off my glasses briefly and relaxed my eyes and then I was good for another few minutes.
Now read what I just wrote above. Every 5 minutes or so I had to interrupt the film -- take myself out of the movie experience -- because my eyes were watering. I also found myself at times going a bit cross-eyed in order to properly see the 3-D. If you want to know why I did not find Avatar the immersive experience some claim it to be, that's a pretty major reason.
At the end of the day I could have easily done without it. I probably would have enjoyed the film more (my often-stated criticisms of its plot and politics notwithstanding) had I gone to see one of the screens showing the 2-D version instead.
Now, of course, everyone is jumping on the 3-D bandwagon since Avatar brought in the big bucks. New films are being announced as being made in 3-D. Films that were not designed to be 3-D are being retroactively converted, such as Alice in Wonderland and the new Harry Potter (presumably this is being done with the directors' OK, but I still liken it to colorizing black and white movies). Alice sounds like it could be as huge a hit as Avatar, which will open the floodgates even more.
I'm going to be honest. I was looking forward to seeing Alice in Wonderland. Until I found out it was going to be in 3-D. There's no way I'm going to be able to enjoy a film if my fracking eyes water every few minutes; not to mention I don't care what other people think, as someone who already wears glasses it's bloody awkward to fit a second pair of glasses over top. It also looks stupid, I don't care if I'm in the dark. But anyway ...
It so happens a couple of screens in my city are showing Alice in 2-D but they're way the hell over the other side of town and I can't be bothered to go that far out of my way. So I'm not going to go see it now until the Blu-Ray comes out which, I trust, will have the 2-D version included.
The writing's on the wall that in all likelihood the 2-D option might not be made available at all in the future, at least in terms of SF/F films. Despite what some people have claimed, I honestly can't imagine something like Up in the Air or Sex and the City 2 being produced or released in 3-D. It'd be stupid. Unfortunately those types of films aren't the kind I'm usually interested in seeing in a theatre anyway.
So I'm in a bit of quandary that I've never encountered before. And that is I usually have several films that I'm really looking forward to every year. I certainly have several coming up this year I really want to go see.
Alice in Wonderland was one. Now it isn't. I will probably get the Blu-Ray later, or I may not bother. I'm no longer even so enthused about the other films coming up, like Deathly Hallows. My 70-year-old father, who is the biggest Harry Potter fan on Earth, has already told me he won't go see Deathly Hallows in the theatre if it's 3-D.
I know people like me are dismissed as Luddites and "old fashioned". The flaming I got when I criticized the remastering of Star Trek TOS is one of the reasons I never post on Trek-specific boards anymore because people just didn't "get it" no matter how many times I tried to explain my objections. People probably will also call me an idiot and say "just deal" as they read this thread before heading out for their 10th viewing of Avatar or Alice. But I can't believe I'm the only one for whom the "all-in" approach that is either already being followed or will soon be followed regarding 3-D is leaving them feeling more than a little disenfranchised.
Alex
I have nothing against 3-D. I was initially concerned that the recent 3-D seen in Avatar wouldn't work for me because my astigmatism prevented me from viewing the "color glasses" form of 3-D of films like Journey to the Center of the Earth. I went to see Avatar in 3-D and it worked fine except my eyes began watering if I watched more than 5 minutes at a time at which point I took off my glasses briefly and relaxed my eyes and then I was good for another few minutes.
Now read what I just wrote above. Every 5 minutes or so I had to interrupt the film -- take myself out of the movie experience -- because my eyes were watering. I also found myself at times going a bit cross-eyed in order to properly see the 3-D. If you want to know why I did not find Avatar the immersive experience some claim it to be, that's a pretty major reason.
At the end of the day I could have easily done without it. I probably would have enjoyed the film more (my often-stated criticisms of its plot and politics notwithstanding) had I gone to see one of the screens showing the 2-D version instead.
Now, of course, everyone is jumping on the 3-D bandwagon since Avatar brought in the big bucks. New films are being announced as being made in 3-D. Films that were not designed to be 3-D are being retroactively converted, such as Alice in Wonderland and the new Harry Potter (presumably this is being done with the directors' OK, but I still liken it to colorizing black and white movies). Alice sounds like it could be as huge a hit as Avatar, which will open the floodgates even more.
I'm going to be honest. I was looking forward to seeing Alice in Wonderland. Until I found out it was going to be in 3-D. There's no way I'm going to be able to enjoy a film if my fracking eyes water every few minutes; not to mention I don't care what other people think, as someone who already wears glasses it's bloody awkward to fit a second pair of glasses over top. It also looks stupid, I don't care if I'm in the dark. But anyway ...
It so happens a couple of screens in my city are showing Alice in 2-D but they're way the hell over the other side of town and I can't be bothered to go that far out of my way. So I'm not going to go see it now until the Blu-Ray comes out which, I trust, will have the 2-D version included.
The writing's on the wall that in all likelihood the 2-D option might not be made available at all in the future, at least in terms of SF/F films. Despite what some people have claimed, I honestly can't imagine something like Up in the Air or Sex and the City 2 being produced or released in 3-D. It'd be stupid. Unfortunately those types of films aren't the kind I'm usually interested in seeing in a theatre anyway.
So I'm in a bit of quandary that I've never encountered before. And that is I usually have several films that I'm really looking forward to every year. I certainly have several coming up this year I really want to go see.
Alice in Wonderland was one. Now it isn't. I will probably get the Blu-Ray later, or I may not bother. I'm no longer even so enthused about the other films coming up, like Deathly Hallows. My 70-year-old father, who is the biggest Harry Potter fan on Earth, has already told me he won't go see Deathly Hallows in the theatre if it's 3-D.
I know people like me are dismissed as Luddites and "old fashioned". The flaming I got when I criticized the remastering of Star Trek TOS is one of the reasons I never post on Trek-specific boards anymore because people just didn't "get it" no matter how many times I tried to explain my objections. People probably will also call me an idiot and say "just deal" as they read this thread before heading out for their 10th viewing of Avatar or Alice. But I can't believe I'm the only one for whom the "all-in" approach that is either already being followed or will soon be followed regarding 3-D is leaving them feeling more than a little disenfranchised.
Alex
