I am over gimmicky novelty-films too. Are you actually reading this thread? (I’m asking in all seriousness or you’d know that most people don’t consider all the recent 3-D movies to rely on in-your-face gimmicks.)
I was going to say it’s a gimmick that can’t go away soon enough too.
I saw a few of the gimmick novelty Sea World ones (which were “4-d”, so they did stuff like squirt water at you and make the chairs shake on top of the 3-d thing) so it didn’t seem that interesting/exciting to me when the new 3-d fad started. I saw Coraline in regular 2-d and it was quite fine with me. And then my best friend was all excited about the novelty of a 3-d movie and dragged me to the crapfest that was Monsters vs. Aliens. I’m NOT a puker and normally don’t get motion sickness or anything, but lord- I had to keep my eyes shut through that whole movie (didn’t want to get up and leave and draw attention). It was a damn mercy that I eventually fell asleep.
But the idea that, when used right, it’s more about giving depth to things than the gimmicky effects is a compelling one. While I think I’ve had my last feature-length 3-d movie at least until the technology improves or until I get prescription 3-d glasses or something, if it can be used for good and not evil, I’m for it.
I have indeed been reading the thread. If you have a look at my earlier post, you’ll notice I mentioned that there are only a tiny number of 3D capable cinemas in the State I live in, and none of them are anywhere near me.
So, the only measuring stick I have for 3D films are the sort of things they have at Theme Parks, which, I have to say, is less than impressive- not just in the cliched “things jumping out at you” way, but because I don’t find the 3D effect to be especially compelling- it’s just not especially “convincing” to me and it never really feels like an integral part of the experience (ie, I don’t think it would really make a lot of difference if the film was in 2D or 3D, for the most part).
Like I said, I’d rather seen efforts towards making Holographic Projection more advanced than continuing with 3D movies, which people have been trying to make viable (generally without lasting success) since the 1930s.
Wow, I had the exact opposite experience for that movie. Granted, that flick used the 3D to really grandiose effect, unlike Up or Ice Age 3D, both of which I’ve recently seen and used the 3D as more of a depth-enhancing and layering effect, but I thought Monsters was a pretty cool thrill ride experience anyway.
I find it ironic that someone hung up on bullshit movie gimmicks is calling me childish. I could care less if others get to see images jump out at them on screen. Now if my baby not seeing movies in 3D cured cancer, I could say, hey, its for the better good. But color me childish and silly if I root for that gimmicky ass bullshit to play out like red and green paper sunglasses.
Man, I just don’t get why some people are so rabid in their dislike of 3D. Were people like this when color movies started coming out? I doubt it.
I’ve gone on record in other threads as saying that I’m not particularly fond of 3D. I think it is often gimmicky, often used ineffectively, and only rarely done really well. But it happens to be a component of the business I work in, so I’ve had the opportunity to see a lot of 3D movies: every IMAX 3D film ever made and virtually all of the digital 3D films released in the last 3-4 years.
I’ve told many of my colleagues that 3D distracts from the story and reminds you that you’re in a theater, instead of letting you get engrossed in the story. I’ve said that when it’s gimmicky and calls attention to itself, it’s annoying. And when it doesn’t, you generally forget that it’s there, so they might just as well have made the movie in 2D.
But I have also seen it done well on occasion, and it seems like filmmakers are getting better at using it, as in Coraline and Monsters Vs. Aliens. And whether it’s done well or not, if some people like it, and are willing to pay a premium for it, that’s their choice. Last I checked, this was still a free country.
I don’t particularly like sushi. But I don’t go around fuming, “The sooner all sushi restaurants close, the better.” I also don’t deny factual evidence that sushi restaurants are popular and getting more so.
If you find 3D movies unpleasant, gimmicky, inconvenient, headache-inducing, or whatever, no one’s forcing you to go. What makes you think your preference should be imposed on everyone else?
Where did I say I am forcing my preference on anyone? Does it even make sense to carry on with this exchange if you are gonna start making shit up? Nah.
…
Seriously. Tell me with a straight face that you think me rooting for a gimmick to die out is the same as me forcing my preference on others.
Obviously, not everyone agrees with your characterization of it as a gimmick. Many people – the majority of filmgoers, it would seem – really like it.
If you are merely wishing that not so many people liked 3D and it became less popular, I suppose that’s not exactly the same as imposing your preferences on people. But since it is obviously contrary to fact, it sure looks to me like you’re saying you don’t want people to like what they like, just because you don’t like it.
I think you’re missing a sea-change, here: The implementation of 3D that we are seeing now is anything but gimmicky.
Even in the eighties, in addition to the difficulties in presenting strictly mechanical stereo images, no-one really approached it except as a gimmick - a succession of pointless shots like someone adjusting rabbit ears so that one antenna sticks out over the audience, or someone carrying a rake, or even a machete protruding from someone’s chest… these add up to a movie that’s unwatchable with or without the 3D effect - and it didn’t help that the 3D effect was far from perfect.
A lot of significant limitations have been overcome - sequential stereo means alignment problems are done, software assisted focal point transitions, there’s improved polarization in the glasses so you don’t have to hold your head perfectly straight for two hours, special screens to limit depolarization, improved framerate and luminosity. The technology has improved to the point where it is being used more and more in films of very high quality.
A lot of people swore that colour was a gimmick and a fad, and same for sound films – and for sure, there were poor implementations where the benefits were outweighed by the expense, but they stuck around for the same reason: the increasing fidelity of colour and sound made for a more immersive movie-going experience.
Now that we are seeing a huge uptick in movies made well with 3D, you may as well get used to it.
Ok, Larry. Me and my lil’ girl will have to manage to cope.
You make this sound like such a hardship, and I don’t really get it. Even iin the unlikely event that RealD or some other 3D format totally dominated the marketplace and 100% of the screenings going forward were presented in 3D, then… what?
It’s not as though her stereoblindness would mean she couldn’t see the movie. As it is, you can still see a 2D screening to avoid the minor inconvenience of wearing 3D glasses.
Lots of people have physical issues that make some things less enjoyable for them, but you don’t generally wish for others not to be able to derive any benefit from them - that’s a little bit Harrison Bergeron.
Hell, I’m a Canadian with Raynaud’s, and chances are pretty high that my daughter will have this condition as well; if I started whingeing about wanting hockey and curling to die out, they’d run me over our southern border on a rail. 
I can’t seem to see 3d movies with glasses. It even worse than without them
It is a gimmick, though. It’s something people can’t see at home on their TV, so they have to go to the theater to see it. Just like Cinemascope was, and so on.
Yeah, and most technological “improvements” that are lost on many viewers, reduce the enjoyment of the show for others, or make some viewers puke are usually cast aside.
dropzone, like others, you are dramatically overestimating the number of viewers who have problems with 3D. Even so, IMAX movies and roller coasters make some people puke, and they’re still going strong. 
Was color a gimmick? For the first 10-15 years of TV, you had to go to the theater to see color movies. And the shape of all TV screens these days is 16:9 as a direct result of Cinerama, Todd-AO, Cinemascope, and the other wide-screen formats. Things that some people see as a “gimmick” can become nearly universal, like color, or have other long-term influences, like the wide-screen formats.
Digital 3D started four years ago with Chicken Little, and 3D-capable TV sets are already on the market. I predict that playback options (perhaps based on home theater PCs) that will make watching 3D in the home relatively easy will be available well before Chicken Little’s 10th anniversary.
Hell, there is already a 3D-capable cell phone!
Many people see the pattern of 3D emerging briefly every decade or so over the last 50 years, and then going away, and assume that it has to go away this time, too. But as I’ve tried to explain, with able assistance from Larry Mudd and a few others, things are very, very different this time around. Theaters and studios are now investing billions to build a *permanent *infrastructure for the production and exhibition of 3D content. This has never happened before.
The key to this change is the widespread replacement, now well under way, of 35mm film projectors with digital projectors. The elimination of expensive film prints is the driving factor in this transition, but one of the side benefits is that digital projectors can be made 3D-capable for a relatively small surcharge over their total cost, unlike most previous film-based 3D systems, which were usually more than twice as expensive.
In the digital realm, the cost of 3D production is similarly inexpensive. All of this means that the financial barriers to making and showing 3D movies are much, much lower now than they ever were. Since the public is willing to pay a premium for 3D, the studios and the theaters make more money showing 3D. Much more than they made in the earlier waves of 3D.
And as Larry pointed out, digital 3D provides a much better experience than film 3D did. (Except for IMAX. Real film-based IMAX 3D is still much better than conventional digital or IMAX digital, because the screen is so large.)
Unlike previous incarnations of 3D, all of the major studios, and major Hollywood talents like Cameron, Burton, and Zemeckis, are now busy making 3D films. Pixar and Disney have said that all of their animated films from now on will be 3D.
With all this talent being applied, the quality of today’s 3D films is much higher in every respect than that of their ancestors. The stories are better, the acting is better, and most importantly, the use of 3D is better. The problems that caused discomfort for many viewers are better known and generally avoided, and in the best cases, the 3D is used to advance the story, not as a distracting gimmick.
That is not to say that no one will get headaches, or that there won’t be any gimmicky uses of 3D, or that all 3D films will be great, since, after all, 90% of everything is crap. But it’s still much, much better than the 3D of the bad old days.
Within a year or two, virtually every theater in North America will have at least one 3D-capable screen, and within 5-7 years at most, if the major chains follow through on their announced plans, the vast majority of 35mm projectors will have been replaced with 4K digital systems, at least one third of which will be 3D capable.
I don’t expect *all *multiplex screens to be 3D capable, or all films to be released in 3D, anytime soon. So those who don’t like it may take some comfort in that. But 3D is here to stay.
Thats covers most hollywood made into a show anyway scripts yet we all seem to cope somehow 
Yes, color was a gimmick. “IN BEAUTIFUL TECHNICOLOR!” I’m not saying anything bad about widescreen or color or 3-D or IMAX. I’m saying that the push for it is designed to get people to choose to go to the theater and see it, rather than wait for it to get on DVD… or to burn screeners.
A gimmick is just a thing something has that other things don’t. A selling point.
In other, connected thoughts…
I wonder how a 3-D movie looks if you try camera-recording it, actually. Anyone know?
If the person were to put a correctly-oriented polarizing filter over their camera lens, it would look exactly as crappy as a normal cammed movie.