Movies 3D or not 3D ?

[k-dom]

What is your opinion with the last invasion of 3D in the entertainment business ? Is it a revolution or just a way to make us buy new TV and make our cinema tickets more expensive ?

As for me, I'm quite skeptical on the matter. I only watch it on animation movie yet because I assume it is the medium which benefit the most of it (I prefer to watch a 100% animated movie that a 90% one like Avatar). But so far, I'm yet to be impressed. It's nice, but I have not seen a movie where it makes it outstanding. And I think an animation with a unique design even in 2D will always satisfy me better than the last 3D Disney clone.
Plus I don't now if it's only me but when I watched the 3D trailer, I found the system really uncomfortable each time there was some action scene. Which is kinda a pitty since most of the 3D movies are based on special effects.

Now there is 3D in video game with the new DS, some television are already in 3D. I really have the impression it's a technology we will have to get used to against our will.

 

[HegemonKhan]

I personally hate it, for most movies anyways.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, hehe.

But, first of all, it's merely a "flat 3D", the movie screen appears to have depth, that's it, it not like the older 3D of special entertainments where the 3D appears to be right in front of your eyes (or coming at your head/face/eyes, hehe).

Second, of all, the damned 3D glasses are horrible quality, or maybe my eyes are jsut bad, but it's always blurred through them, as well as the glasses usually being scratched up. It hurts my eyes/makes me sick looking through them, from the blurriness.

Third and last of all, it's damned more expensive, as if the movies aren't already expensive enough, and now they use the 3D-ness to jack up the price even higher, argh! I hate it how some movies are only made in 3D, forcing me to pay that damned higher price! I'm not rich, dammit!

 

[thornofcarrion]

So you guys are saying it isn't much worth it. I bought me a 3d projector few days back. I haven't watched any 3d movie yet. I am waiting for the 3d glasses I booked. Considering what you are saying, it isn't revolution, right?

 

[Zeltrax]

I don't dislike it but sometimes the 3d is really too much.
I mean, sure we go into 3d movies for the 3d effects but some parts when 3d is used is really out of place
and just makes the scene weird.
Whenever I watch 3d I always ask myself how it'll look in 2d and start comparing stuff.
3d is not necessary better imo.

 

[Riku]

It was impressive at first, but the effect fast got dull. Just a 2 or 3 films, and I don't just care anymore. It rarely adds anything worthy to the film. And blurs the picture a little and darkens the color palettes. I prefer 2D, the image is a lot clearer.

Besides, it also strains eyes quite a bit. After watching Thor I hardly coul keep my eyes open, they were so exhausted. And I wasn't even tired at all, just the eyes felt heavy, but the spirit and overall activiness was high.

Sometimes the effect is cool, but mostly it is poorly executed and misused in films. But I don't really think it is an revolution and in 10 years everything is 3D, no. But the cinemas and production companies have invested so much on it, that the 3D sure is there to stay.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Avatar was really the only 3D movie that I thought the 3D was good for a movie. Though even for Avatar, I'm sure I would have liked a 2D version of it just as well.

I'll echo roughly what others have said:

this new type of "flat 3D" just isn't impressive enough, to make up for all of the problems that come with it.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

Also, I think this discussion correlates to one that came up with gaming quite some time ago now, lol:

research and science has shown that people are only initially impressed with the graphics of games, but once they start getting immersed into the game, they're complete oblivious to the graphics, and could care less about them.

So all these new games that focus on better and better graphics, just isn't actually important to gamers at all. Once you're playing the game you completely are oblivious to whether its the very first Zelda for the NES (~6 bytes or whatever it is, lol), or if it's the newest zelda with computer level graphics, people just biologically lose their awareness of those better or worse graphics once they actually start playing and becoming immersed in that playing, as they have more important things to focus on, lol, like not dying, hehe

so, I'm sure this same biological science effect also certainly applies to movies' graphics too.

 

[kkck]

I don't like it honestly. It's mostly because of the glasses though, specially in the movies. They are worn by everyone (and lets face it, people are gross and movies don't make much of an effort to clean them properly), bad quality and notoriously unconfortable. I would rather not watch the movie at all than wear those things. 3D would be awesome were it not for the glasses though. It would still not be something for which I would pay extra money when it comes to buying a TV even if it did not require the glasses, I would settle for regular old fashion HD tv. On another note, going to the movies and seeing them in HD is beautiful lol.

 

[Jammin]

I'm not much of a fan. I don't really think it adds that much to the experience.

I mean when movies started being in HD, that really felt like it added something, but i don't feel the same way about 3D. It just seems unnecessary and gadgety to me.

 

[Jorge D. Dragon]

I would say that it totally depends on the movie. But still it's a revolution. No doubt at it.
Of course the biggest impact on me produced Avatar, but of course there were some other movies that looked great in 3D. The thing is those who make feels should understand why and for what reason they add 3D effects in their films to not have 3D only for a reason to have it. Sometimes the film just get better with 3D effect like Avatar, but sometimes it's just totally out of context like in Christmas Story (at least for me).

So, I would say yes to 3D, but it should be logical in the film. The thing is that eventually we might get all the films in #d or even in 4D in like 4-5 years.

 

[Riku]

So, I would say yes to 3D, but it should be logical in the film. The thing is that eventually we might get all the films in #d or even in 4D in like 4-5 years.

Not so sure on that. The 3D film sales are declining. Polls show that it interests the audience less and less. It might change if the glasses get more comfortable and films utilize the technology better. And that the prize of a ticket wouldn't be so notably more expensive than 2D.

There are also significant minority of people, who just can't watch 3D due to eye condition or it launching bad headache. There also has been arguing if kids should watch 3D at all. Then there is the issue in the countries which use subtitles, those just don't quite work. It has gotten better in recent years though. Also, it is expensive to make. Hollywood and cinemas around the world have invested so much on it though, that it isn't dissappearing anymore and we have more and more 3D films. But I have the feeling that it will settle in not so distant future. And 2D ain't dissapearing anywhere either.

 

[HegemonKhan]

For me, I'd need the revolution of Virtual Reality ("Immersion"-being "in" the movie itself) movies to be worth the extra cost, otherwise my old school (and cheaper) 2D is quite fine for me. Though VR might be way too scary... heart-attack scary... laughs. The old Myst game for the PC becomes real... except instead of a magical book sucking you into its story, its a movie, hehe.

The ONLY part I like about 3D, is when it involves zooming in on busty cleavage of a female character

3D fanservice yes!, but 3D movies no!

 

[Jorge D. Dragon]

Ustegius
Is the difference in price between 2D and 3D in Portugal that big? I would say that in my country the difference is only about 2-2,5 times between them. So like normally 2D with students discount will cost about 2,5 Euro and 3d without discount will cost 5-7 Euro in average cinema. The thing is that for now 3D mostly isn't used propperly and that is the cause (as I see it) of the low interest to it in different countries, though in Russia I would say it's rather popular. The thing is I don't like when 3D is used without any sense like when you get a simple 2D cartoon with effects like dirt or dust "getting" towards the audience. It doesn't give actual 3D effect, but only annoys. On the other hand when you get movies like Avatar (that actually was 3D revolution) you understand what real 3D looks like.
Though I agree with you on the quality of 3D glasses. It's really poor in most of cinemas, but still it gets better over years. I would say that like 3 years ago it was real shit, but now I would say that even in average cinema it's at least of an ok quality. So I do believe that in several years it would get way better.
I agree about headaches. I actually had those. I have problems with eyesight, so I wear glasses, when I watch TV or use computer. The thing is for not to have any headaches from 3D movies I have to use both normal glasses and 3D glasses. Sure it looks a bit weird (well... not a bit, but still).


HegemonKhan
My friend told me that they also try now 4D, but only as an experiment for now. And that thing really looks like total immersion. Not sure for now if I would like to try it, but maybe in like 10 years it would be possible like 3D it won't be that bad to try that thing in cinema.


Also, the technologies now are developing at a totally diffrenet pace than 10 years ago, so I wouldn't be suprised if in let's say 5-7 years we would be talking not via phones, but via video projections.

 

[k-dom]

The problem is that since Avatar nobody is able to tell a movie which as used 3D as good as it had. And that is 2 years already. So naturally people are disappointed and don't want to pay twice the price for cheap effects.

 

[Jorge D. Dragon]

I agree. The thing is that I hope we might get something pretty soon, cause new Avatar is coming and it seems that it's going to be even more developed in 3D department than the first part. Also Lucas announced that he wanted to remake his old Star Wars in 3D, so maybe it will be handled in a propper way. Also I hope we can get something interesting, cause there are going to be tons of different projects in upcoming years. The thing is that in order to make a good science fiction movie better with 3D tecnology the stuff just needs to think, because I'm sure that 3D movies can be economically sucsessful if they get good specialists and get a good conception of 3d effects in order to make film better.

 

[Riku]

Seriously? 7e 3D with discount? I don't live in Portugal, but in Finland. And regular 2D ticket is about 8e and 3D 13,5e. So 3D is hardly worth, especially when DVDs usually cost the ~16e when new...

And please, no. Someone stop Lucas!!! Don't let him touch the original three!!!

 

[Jorge D. Dragon]

Ustegius
5-7 Euro is the price without discount. With it it might be even less, though we don't often have discounts for 3D. At least not in all cinemas.

Yes, I agree. When you have prices like you posted... it's hardly worth not only to watch 3D, but even go to the cinema. It's obviously better to buy DVD.

I don't know if he would actually make them in 3D, but still that's what he planed to do after watching Avatar.

 

[HegemonKhan]

I must be old, as here in the U.S.,

I remember movie tickets being like $ 5-6, now only children tickets and "matinee" (before ~ 5 pm) are $ 5-6.

2D Tickets now are like $ 8-10

3D Tickets are like $ 10-13

the normal 2D tickets are already too much... and 3D tickets are even more costly... grr !!!

-------------------

I thought George Lucas announced that he was done with doing "big blockbuster" movies, and wanted to concentrate on smaller and more personal movies. Though this doesn't neccessarily conflict with what has been mentioned, such as the remaking/re-doing of the other Star Wars, as that could be a personal interest of his, lol.

As for that (Star Wars), I don't see what the big deal is, as long as the old ones are still available to be seen-rented too. That way you can have your pick between the new and old, and able to compare them too.

 

[Jorge D. Dragon]

Now that's a surprise. I always thought that the difference in prices isn't that big. Of course we have more or less the same process on 3D movies if we count high-class cinemas without any discounts, but 2D tickets are way too expensive. I don't even know if it's worth going to the cinema with such prices.

 

[Jammin]

Seriously? 7e 3D with discount? I don't live in Portugal, but in Finland. And regular 2D ticket is about 8e and 3D 13,5e. So 3D is hardly worth, especially when DVDs usually cost the ~16e when new...

And please, no. Someone stop Lucas!!! Don't let him touch the original three!!!

Agreed. Don't get me wrong George Lucas deserves all the credit in the world for making the original movies but the prequels proved that he just doesn't have the magic anymore.

If he wants them redone he needs to hand the reigns to somebody who really has a feel for making movies in the new modern era of cinema and just stay out of it. Get Bryan Singer to do it, even if you just have to bury him up to his neck in money. Or if they can't get him maybe Christopher Nolan. Somebody who would see the insertion of a character like JarJar in the screenplay and be like "Hell no, we will not be doing that!"

 

[rudorofu]

Personally, when I watch 3D movies, after a few minutes, my eyes adjust to the screen enough for me to realize that there doesn't seem to be a difference between non 3D and 3D movies :S Is that just me...? So, it doesn't matter whether or not it's in 3D graphics because either way, it will look like a normal movie to me.