[Movies] 3D movies, seal of approval now?

[Djuntas]

So I was sitting in the cinema today, minding my own business eating my popcorn. As you all know before the movie start you, haft to sit trough alot of trailers and the likes.

So the last trailer for a movie is no other than http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzgtthLqIJE Titanic in 3D.


So whats your POV on 3D movies? Personally I cant stand it anymore. I know try to avoid any movies with 3D, cause in my world its a failed ship.

Titanic in 3D screams sell-out so big on James Camerons side that you think he's just doing it to get gold washsinks. But thats another topic (I just find it strange to "UHH NEW MOVIE JUST CAUSE 3D").


Anywho, yay or nay on 3D ?

[tala1the5cyborg]

I dont have any trouble with 3D movies, however i think its a bit... pushing it to make old classics (like Titanic, or Lion King) into 3D.

[Deleted]

I say they are a waste of time but thats becos im 3D blind will never be able to see 3D either way

I dont realy see the point in it tbh.

[Myah]

What I don't like are the glasses. I need to use my own glasses so I can see the movie without being all blurred. And the 3D glasses never fit well, they keep falling off and I have to constantly be fixing them. It's pretty annoying

And some movies not done in full 3D with like 5 scenes total in 3d is a big waste of time

[Symphonic]

I think 3D in certain instances is awesome. For example. Was the movie shot in 3D? Was it intended to be viewed in 3D? If a movie is not shot in 3D, then I typically do not want to see it in 3D because it's usually a rushed project that doesn't give them enough time to rotoscope the entire movie frame by frame and put them where they're supposed to be stereoscopically, which makes it such an ugly movie in 3D. (See movie: Clash of the Titans)

James Cameron is an advocate for no 3D unless it's done the right way (Filmed in 3D or pay extra millions to spend the extra time converting 2D to 3D). I agree, although just because something is filmed in 3D doesn't mean it enhances the story... (Piranha 3D...)

My view is that when I hear a movie is coming out in 3D, I will find out how the movie was shot, and go from there. I LOVED The Adventures of Tin Tin: Secret of the Unicorn in 3D, and it was the best motion capture I have ever seen. It was amazing. All of the CG animated stuff (Like Pixar stuff or Puss n' Boots, etc) is okay in 3D, not really necessary, but at least it's "correct" and not going to be ugly 3D. So... hope that helps.

PS The Hobbit is being FILMED in 3D and at 60 Frames per second (Normal movies are 24 FPS, he's doing 60 to hopefully stop the headaches some people get when watching regular ones that flicker) so that is going to be one crazy good movie! Peter Jackson is doing a fantastic job.

[nixcookies]

I don't like it personally, and I hope this doesn't become the norm and replace the traditional 2d viewing experience.

[Clockwork Pinkie]

Titanic in 3D screams sell-out so big on James Camerons side that you think he's just doing it to get gold washsinks. But thats another topic (I just find it strange to "UHH NEW MOVIE JUST CAUSE 3D").


Anywho, yay or nay on 3D ?

It's the 100 year anniversary of the maiden voyage, but surely we don't expect anyone to know that. Hence why it's coming out that month. It's in 3D because if it was not, people would just watch the version they have at home (I still am going to, it's free).

[logobola]

3D movies are like the autotune of the media industry.

[PBitt]

The glasses are the biggest factor in it for me, I'll be much more interested when they drop the need for them in order to see the movie in 3D. Plus, a lot of people don't like it because it bothers their eyes or whatever, so I really am not sure if this 3D will ever be the norm or if it's just a phase atm.

Personally, I like it, the only reason I enjoyed Avatar was because of the 3D, I must admit, it certainly made it quite engaging, on the big screen at least. Not so sure it would have the same effect at home, as my screen simply isn't that huge. As far as bringing old movies into 3D, most of that is just the search for more money, I guess if some of my favorites are brought into 3D it may be worth a trip.

[reohh]

Honestly 3D would be awesome if we didnt have to pay the extra $5 for it. *It should be the same price as the normal movie. *But for $5, seeing a movie in 3D just isnt worth it. *Especially when 1 ticket for like $17

PS The Hobbit is being FILMED in 3D and at 60 Frames per second (Normal movies are 24 FPS, he's doing 60 to hopefully stop the headaches some people get when watching regular ones that flicker) so that is going to be one crazy good movie! Peter Jackson is doing a fantastic job.

The Hobbit is being filmed in 48fps, not 60. Despite the fact that the RED Epic(the camera they are using to film it) can more than handle it. I believe it can go up to 300fps at 4k resolution.

[Restototems]

I can see the point of certain cinematic movies being made in 3D (think Avatar, The Hobbit, heck, even Jackass 3D was pretty awesome). But re-making certain movies just screams of studios being desperate to make more money. Plus, I don't want to sit in a movie theater with crazy glasses on for 4 hours. Has there been any studies on how these movies will affect your eyes, especially for a longer period of time??

[Judge Malthred]

3D is the future of cinema. Making old movies into 3D is a shameless grab for money. Shooting movies in 2D and then paying to transfer them to 3D is a waste of money with sub par result compared to movies that are shot in 3D.

With the state of awesomeness that can be your home theater these days, there needs to be a new reason to go to a cinema to watch a movie - and its 3D. Tron in 3D? Avatar in 3D? If you missed movies like this in the cinema (and especially in IMAX) than IMO you truly missed out on something awesome. Seeing them at home on a 3D TV is NOT the same at all.

If they get 3D right and stop all these rehashes and conversions then I think it will be the future for cinema, and owning personal 3D glasses will be like having any other accessory.

[Roose]

I feel so dated, but I still have yet to even see one. I hate movie theaters.

Seems odd Cameron would waste time on this, but he was one of the biggest pushers of 3D with Avatar.

[Feral Camel]

3D really does not interest me. Plot and characters do.

Avatar was a visually stunning film and a great in Cinema experience.
(IMO) The story was just terrible.

I'm not a NO for 3D. It has its place and clearly people do enjoy it. Its just not a draw card for me.

[grandpab]

The only movie I've seen in 3d was Avatar and I thought the 3d was horrible. It was basically non-existent except for a few scenes, and when it was really obvious the picture was just crap.

I also have to wear glasses and having to wear 2 glasses is just shitty.

[endersblade]

I'm actually getting sick and tired of 3d movies...and I know this is slightly off-topic.

My local theater is starting to show more and more 3d movies, and less and less 2d movies. *The ticket price for a 3d movie: *$17. *2d movie? *$10. *I already think $10 is far too fucking expensive to see a movie, why the fuck would I pay $7 more to see it in 3d? *I was talking to one of the clerks who works there, she frequents the sub-way I go to for lunch, and we occasionally chit-chat. *She said that they've had to lay off several employees, because people just aren't coming to the theater like they used to. *I mentioned the prices, and she totally agreed: *She said many, many people have already filed official complaints, and there have actually been threats to the theater and the employees about it. *Kinda silly, but it's already come to this. *I told her I haven't gone to the theater in over 2 years (I used to go at LEAST once a month for the better part of my life, and I'm freaking 30!) and it was a combination of the prices and the advent of 3d movies that drove me away.

I've actually started torrenting those shitty hidden camera videos of new releases. *If it's good, I'll definitely go buy the DVD or Blu-ray, but I'm not spending $10/$17 on a movie just to find out it's crap. *That's half the cost/almost the entire cost of a freaking DVD copy of it. *And considering Theaters don't see any of the profits from ticket sales, I just don't see a point in it. *The thing is, I've been staunchly AGAINST those people who take cameras into theaters. *I've been responsible for getting several of them removed from the theater, and now here I am supporting them.

There's also the fact that the quality of movies over the past ~20 years has absolutely gone down the crapper. *Stories are getting shitty, book-to-screen movies are getting butchered due to time constraints...I really can't see theaters staying in business for another 10 years, I just can't. *This whole 'we're gonna redo everything in 3d!' is going to be the final nail in the coffin. *$10 was the threshold for me, and tickets will only go UP in price. *I'm pretty much out of going to the movies from here on out.

[Surfd]

The only movie I've seen in 3d was Avatar and I thought the 3d was horrible. It was basically non-existent except for a few scenes, and when it was really obvious the picture was just crap.

o.0

I would love to know where you watched Avatar in 3d and what 3D format it was in, because I would have to say that Avatar was possibly the most visually stunning 3d movie I have EVER seen. Sure, the plot / story was kind of lame, but the Visuals were nothing short of astounding.

As to your complaint about the 3D being "non-existant", that was half the beauty of it. For the vast majority of the movie, the 3D was very subtle, usually emphasizing deapth, scope and size, really helping to immerse you in just how freaking awesome the landscapes of the planet were. Most modern 3D movies usually use the 3D to beat you over the head with stupid visual ejaculations. Spears wizzing by your head, people waving things at the audience for gratuitous effect. Avatar avoided all that, and it made it a much better movie.

As for Titanic 3D, while I have never been much of a huge fan of the movie, James Cameron in my opinion gets a pass to do whatever the hell he wants with his 3D hobbies / pet projects, considering how much of our current 3D Filming Technology advancement we owe to the man.

[Feral Camel]

As for Titanic 3D, while I have never been much of a huge fan of the movie, James Cameron in my opinion gets a pass to do whatever the hell he wants with his 3D hobbies / pet projects, considering how much of our current 3D Filming Technology advancement we owe to the man.

I agree with this but other then Avatar, what films have use this technology well?

[Surfd]

I agree with this but other then Avatar, what films have use this technology well?

Quite a few of the live action 3D movies shot after Avatar have been using the camera tech he help develop for Avatar.

Unfortunately, no amount of good cameras will help save your movie from bad Directing, poor shot planning, and the ever present "ZOMG FLASHY 3D" that the undustry is still obsessed with.

[Beskar]

3D is awful. Nobody ever films in it, or even makes a decent attempt at converting if it was filmed in 2D. Even the 3D that's filmed that way and is reasonably well done (and as much as I think Avatar was awful in basically every other regard, I have to admit the 3D was decently well done, and even then I don't prefer it over 2D by any means), I find really stressful on the eyes, and the glasses are certainly a mild annoyance that I'd just rather not deal with for something that I don't feel improves the viewing experience. And of course there's the over-the-top throwing things at the audience type of 3D gimmicks that are just as awful as they were in the 90s...

I really hope the technology improves a ton, or this bizarre interest in 3D begins to die out.