"... and 2D in select theaters." Bite me.

The BBQ Pit
1

Well, I suspected it was going to happen, and it’s finally done so.

I can barely see 3D movies (due to my amblyopia), and my wife absolutely can’t (she’s blind in one eye). As such, we’ve been getting increasingly annoyed by the current rise in 3D movies. Even though I *can *see the 3D effect, it doesn’t add anything to the experience for me- and it costs extra. Luckily, every movie we’ve wanted to see has been shown (at our local theater) in 2D *and *3D.

Until tonight. Until Tron. Which we both really want to see. It’s only in 3D. It’s not playing in our theater in 2D at all.

So if we want to see Tron, we’ve got to go to another theater- one that’s nowhere near as nice, and nowhere near as convenient.

Can we just fucking end this fad, please?

2

Film producer here.

Not likely to end for a long long time. Theaters need stuff that brings people out. The rest of the stuff they can watch at home.

When the 3d film fad ends, it is because it will be replaced by 3d interactive social games.

3

I’m with you on this. I prefer leaving a movie theater without a headache.

4

I’m with you on this. It was necessary for Avatar (it was the whole goddamn point of Avatar) but it’s been entirely unnecessary in just about everything else. It’s freakin’ expensive and it makes most of these movies worse.

5

Just as soon as we end the “color” and “surround sound” fads.

6

Both of which actually add to the movie experience. 3D? Not so much, other than, “Hey, look at this 3D scene!!!” You can always spot the scenes they shot to showcase the 3D effect.

Besides, color and surround sound don’t make the movie impossible for a portion of the population to watch the movies. 3D, on the other hand, means that those of us who can’t see 3D have to pay extra for LESS movie experience. My wife and I go to see a LOT of movies- generally, once a week. 3D just means we’ll be seeing movies less. Did color or surround sound drive anyone out of the theater?

7

The production and distribution and exhibition was very different at the time - vertically integrated until 1948 (see Paramount), but yes, the type of color (panavision, etc) was enough to move market share from one silo to another.

Note that soon after Paramount, TV took off, siphoning viewers, and so movie styles, technology, and marketing changed rapidly. In fact, if there is one thing that can be said for the history of movies, it is that the technology and business models of production, distribution, and exhibition have changed quite regularly over the years, all in the name of staying one step ahead of alternative choices for entertainment, and keeping asses in the seats.

Given the success of this generation of 3D, and the attrition of market share to netflix, etc., no one is going to worry if grandma and grandpa stays away. They are not the bread and butter customer anyway.

8

Not sure about color, but surround sound? For sure.

3d might be this way now, but you’d better believe that eventually 3d will be every bit as normal as color. Hell, we might eventually find a way to let people with 1 eye enjoy 3d, too.

9

I have glasses. Do you know how incredibly annoying it is to try and wear those fucking 3D glasses with other glasses behind them? And all for a really pathetic effect which adds nothing to anything?

10

If they can find a way to make me not have to puke with 3D movies, I’ll get behind it. Even a lot of shaky-cam screws with me in a very bad way.

11

So don’t go. There are other entertainment options besides seeing a film in the theater.

Or, better, invent a better type of glasses for people, it is the American way!

12

Yeah, I’m in the same boat. Wearing glasses on top of my glasses ends up with me with an achy nose and usually some focus issues.

So many people wear glasses or have vision issues, I am surprised I hear so few complaints.

13

And I’m sick of all these talkies as well.

14

Y’know, you’re not actually putting forth an argument.

I’m afraid that glasses technology has pretty much hit its limit.

15

Quote for…I dunno. Because I like the quote button.

16

3D is okay for animated films (and that includes 99 percent of Avatar) but it’s a huge fucking headache for live action…with the exception of Jackass 3D, which ended with a man being engulfed in an explosion of diaherra. Very tastefully done.

17

I think the answer here is that movie producers are seeing enough of a rise in sales for movies that for the moment, they can afford to piss off those who dislike 3D movies.

I don’t know what to say other than I’m sorry that your movie routine has been disrupted by 3D movies. I hope you find a solution soon that you find satisfying.

18

Yeesh. Lightnin’, I’ve got some news for your ass. It is not the case that your preferences are objectively correct. Other people do like 3D movies, which is why 3D movies are made. You apparently don’t. Terrific. Don’t watch them. If you want to watch Tron in 2D, then drive your sorry ass to a theater that’s showing it.

19

I can’t stand 3D movies, they don’t give me headaches or anything. I just find them incredibly annoying.

Avatar was the only movie that it seemed to work in. In the rest of the ones I’ve seen, the 3D effect added absolutely nothing to the experience and actually distracted from it because the scenes felt like they had been made ONLY to use the 3D.

20

If they refuse to give those people what they want, then they will just pirate them. And you know how evil that is. Heck, I bet you can already find Tron online for free.

Anyways, I predict that 3D TV will kill the movie fad, if it’s truly just about providing a feature you can’t have at home. It does severely limit filmmakers, since you can more easily jar people, and have a much harder time with framing a shot for effect.

For example, take Lord of The Rings: the whole hobbits being shorter was done by distance from the camera. You can’t do that in 3D except as an after effect–and those still don’t look good.