Is 3-D ruining film-going for you?

[God Magnus]

I can certainly understand why someone in your position would feel 3D has ruined their film-going experience. However, I do not believe the technology has ruined film going overall. First off, proportionally speaking, there are few 3D movies compared to the mountains of films that come out every year. Even then, 3D films have non-3D options to view.

I enjoy 3D for movies that have spectacular effects such as "Avatar", but I wouldn't bother seeing say, "Once" or "The Hangover" in 3D since I don't think it would add much to the film's experience.

The best thing is for these films to keep being released with two versions: a 3D and a 2D and I think audiences will be okay.

 

[Michael Chris]

What you need to do if you want 2D and only 3d is available, use the same polarization for each eye. Probably wouldn't be too hard to make.

 

[Geckothan]

They should be more considerate to people with colour blindness or bad vision in one eye.

 

[Sparky]

What you need to do if you want 2D and only 3d is available, use the same polarization for each eye. Probably wouldn't be too hard to make.

Really? Go ahead. Ask the ticket taker at your 3D cinema to make you glasses with the same polarization. get back to me with the results.

 

[Lindley]

I still haven't seen any 3D movies. Actually I haven't been to the movies since Planet 51. I should fix that.

 

[Sparky]

Some 3D movies are really good. Now that 3D is the next big thing I am sure that we will see some really great 3D and some gimmick stupid 3D

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They should be more considerate to people with colour blindness or bad vision in one eye.

They should make all films with on-screen subtitles for people with impaired hearing. In fact, this whole "talkie" thing is a noisy nuisance and a fad.

 

[Gojira]

I have almost complete blindness in one eye so wearing those 3D glasses does nothing for me. I can't see a movie in 3D. I saw Avatar in 2D and thought it was fantastic!! I just hope the studios remember us visually impaired people and not release everything in 3D.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

One can show a 2D movie on equipment designed for 3D projection, of course.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

I certainly can appreciate your predicament, but every film released in 3d to date has also been released in 2d.

You noted that Alice had been released in 2d, you just didn't want to drive across town to see it. And that's a little silly. What if it was a movie like Moon that only played in limited release? In those situations do you say, "Nope, I'd not driving across town"? Unless your town is Jacksonville or Houston or some other city that's an hour's drive wide, you seem to be imposing a real limit on yourself.

For me to see films even just in Lie-Max, I have to drive 45 minutes. "Across town" can't be that big an inconvenience.

 

[bigdaddy]

No, in fact it's the only reason I bother with movies now a days. Don't like them then watch the 2D version, it's all good.

 

[Mike Farley]

They should be more considerate to people with colour blindness or bad vision in one eye.

They should make all films with on-screen subtitles for people with impaired hearing. In fact, this whole "talkie" thing is a noisy nuisance and a fad.

Not as bad as this horrible "color" fad. What the hell is that?

 

[Michael Chris]

What you need to do if you want 2D and only 3d is available, use the same polarization for each eye. Probably wouldn't be too hard to make.

Really? Go ahead. Ask the ticket taker at your 3D cinema to make you glasses with the same polarization. get back to me with the results.

Well, I wasn't saying to ask the ticket taker. I was saying make them and bring them.

 

[David cgc]

They should be more considerate to people with colour blindness or bad vision in one eye.

How does colorblindness have anything to do with 3D? Even if you were only colorblind in one eye, a 2D movie (and real life) would strobe just as much as something in 3D, unless you went around with one eye covered.

 

[mswood]

23skidoo

Well my only problem is I don't want to see films being studio mandated to be shot in a manner that makes 3-D more viable, and I want to make sure that 2-D is still available as a means of watching those films.

I wasn't bothered by TOS-Remastered because I knew 2 things and suspected another. The two things I knew. 1. That Paramount then Viacom will have sold far more copies of the original release that I can't see the remastered ever catching up with. and 2. The majority of viewers of Trek (throughout time) will never see the remastered. The one thing I expected (but I didn't know) was that I assumed that the release would feature both versions (the cleanup with new effects and the cleaned up with old effects) in the same release. Meaning that even if I threw away all of my other releases I would still have a more accurate versions then what most Trek fans watched growing up (as far more viewers saw the cut syndicated versions then the full versions either on broadcast or their eventual home release. And just like paintings the actual clean up of the film didn't bother me at all. That part I was all for.

I am far more worried about the film industry and this fad (for at least the short term) because it very likely will have a direct influence on how directors layout scenes. So on this I do actually understand your view here (or shall I say I agree with your view here more).

Of course, if its a directors choice to film 3-D and thats his/her vision of what that film is I am all for that being how its made.

 

[Bishbot]

They should be more considerate to people with colour blindness or bad vision in one eye.

How does colorblindness have anything to do with 3D? Even if you were only colorblind in one eye, a 2D movie (and real life) would strobe just as much as something in 3D, unless you went around with one eye covered.

When I went to see Star Trek with a colour-blind friend he asked me afterwards:

"That girl that Kirk was going to hook up with... was she an alien or did she just have really bad sunburn?"

 

[Rii]

When I went to see Star Trek with a colour-blind friend he asked me afterwards:

"That girl that Kirk was going to hook up with... was she an alien or did she just have really bad sunburn?"

I love it.

 

[Vendikarr]

3-D films tend to give me headaches, so I avoid them.

Until that is fixed, I will stick with 2-D.

 

[Klaus]

Beowulf didn't bother me much but my eyes freaked out before the end of Avatar... I'm not excited overall by 3D and don't find it adds anything to the experience.

...and in my area anyway, the best theater isn't showing either Avatar or Alice in 2D, only 3D or 3D Imax. I don't have a choice without going quite a bit further or settling for a smaller screen. I can honestly see 3D making me NOT go to the theaters in some situations and instead waiting for a DVD.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Talk about a bunch of whiners. I wonder if your great grandparents whined about TV straining their eyes. Or perhaps your great great grandparents talking about radio noise straining their ears. I, for one, enjoyed 3D. Yes, the glasses were a bit clumsy, but the enjoyment out of seeing my step-daughter loving the movie and the fact that it was just cool. I can understand against having The Hangover in 3D or a romantic comedy in 3D, but movies like Avatar and Alice in Wonderland where the scenery literally jumps out at you and come life, its fun.

If your physical limitations does not permit you to enjoy 3D, well a deaf man doesn't enjoy the radio, so go to non-3D movies, no one is forcing you to watch them. Every theatre around my area that has a 3D screening has a 2D companion next to it.