The darkness is pretty much what put me off 3D, especially after seeing the new Tron, in which pretty much every scene, in and out of the computer world, takes place at night and/or with characters dressed in black. Couldn’t figure out what was going on, half the time.
So I’ll pass, barring some huge tech advance involving holograms or whatnot. I’ve never had a problem with two-dimensionality in conventional film and television.
Bah, why make movies at all? Blind people can’t see them!
The glasses don’t fit over my glasses easily and give me a headache. I am not the only person I know who has this problem. I avoid 3-D movies for this reason.
Until you can show 3-D without needing additional apparatus for viewing it isn’t going to stick.
If I were blind, I’m sure I’d be just fine with no one making movies.
ETA: Not with movies being outlawed, mind you. But with the public deciding it is a pointless fad and deciding not to continue with movies? Sure, a blind person could hope for that without me looking at them sideways. Why not?
DVDs were successful mainly because they worked out a single standard and shared the revenue. VHS gained its success only after Beta had failed, but the situation with 3D is like the very early days of home video where there were 11 different 1/2" tape formats. I can sell you a brand-new in the box Quasar Great Time Machine II.
MP3s versus CDs versus cassettes versus LP versus 78s…? In every case, there was a clear, easily explainable benefit to the consumer. Portable, cheaper, more rugged - something. 3D has only a reported “wow” factor, and a huge percentage of the potential audience is apparently no longer wowed.
Another part of that is Hollywood’s own damn fault, shooting the films flat and using a cheesy pseudo-stereo conversion process that sounds about as convincing as the one they used for mono records. The only ones that receive rave reviews are the ones actually shot in 3D like Avatar, or computer generated films like Up.
You didn’t deal with the problem of expensive glasses. And wake me when glasses-free 3D is anything other than a lab curiosity.
I think animated movies can do 3D ok, because I think in animation you already realize you are seeing a step away from reality. But 3D in live action movies is painful, hard to watch and never really seems 3D to me, more like a few layers of action.
Not caring if movies stop being made, sure. Actively hoping for movies to stop being made? I think I’d definitely be looking sideways.
What in the world is the problem that people have with other hoping for something? I got news for you…hoping for something affects nothing. At all.
I find people’s attitude about 3D fascinating, boy.
Actually, I did mention that there is new technology that allows you to see 3D without glasses.
This is not some wild lab experiment. They demonstrated this at the most recent convention here in Las Vegas, and from what I have heard at my local electronics store (Fry’s Electronics), they expect to be seeing these in stores before the end of the year. Granted, the first ones will most likely be expensive, but the price will go down eventually - usually about 75% cheaper the day AFTER I buy one.
It’s on store shelves now: the Nintendo 3DS. The problem with it is the viewing angle is really narrow, so you have to sit in one place and not move in order to see it.
I pretty much agree, as long as they were made for 3D. How To Train Your Dragon was converted later and the 3D was bad.
A Christmas Carol was made in 3D and the effect was good.
I think it’s the extra money. When tickets are already $10+ I’m not paying an extra $2.50 or whatever to see it in 3D.
It’s less about 3D per se and more about the fact that hoping that something which has no effect on your life should you choose not to partake in it, yet from which other people derive enjoyment would go away is strange, to say the least.
It’s actually a MORE understandable position with 3D versus 2D, because theaters are giving less space to 2D films and making it harder for people who want to see them. The analogy of a blind person wishing movies would go away is just odd, though.
Well, with due respect, the arguments are obviously not entirely the same;
The number of people who are physically unable to watch 3D movies versus 2D is seemingly quite substantial, whereas few people, if any, are unable to watch a color movie versus a B&W version,
There is a fairly substantial amount of opinion that 3D movies cause significant drawbacks in other elements of the viewing experience (specifically, the dimness)
You don’t have to wear dorky glasses to watch a color film.
However, I don’t think the issue of price matters in the long run. If 3D sticks eventually there will be one standard price.
Quoth Gangster Octopus:
That’s not actually an animation/live action divide, but a filmed in 3D/converted from 2D divide. With animated movies (at least, computer-generated animated movies), it’s only a tiny, tiny bit more effort to “film” it in 3D than it is in 2D, so all of them go ahead and do that. With live-action movies, though, it’s significantly more expensive, so many live-action 3D movies are filmed in 2D and then converted, which leads to the layers effect you mention. It’s still possible to do it right, though, like in Avatar, and when it is it contributes to the immersion, rather than hurting it.
Yeah, I think that analogy is bad, too. I only went with it because Red Barchetta brought it up as if it worked. I really didn’t want to fight the hypothetical, so I rode with it.
RickJay, anyone who can see anything can watch a 3D movie. Your eyes are getting the same information they’d be getting from seeing a real 3D scene. Now, some people might not be able to distinguish between 3D and 2D, but then, there are folks who can’t distinguish between B&W and color, too.
The dimness is easy enough to fix. It’s a factor of 2 (or maybe 4, depending on the projection process) reduction in brightness. That’s hardly insurmountable: Just make projectors with bulbs twice or four times as bright.
I’ll grant that color movies don’t need glasses, but that’s hardly enough to kill the technology by itself.
I think there will always be “Event” movies that will be in 3D, but there are some people (not here) claiming that eventually ALL movies will be in 3D, and that’s ridiculous too.
I’d rather see a movie in 2D, but I did buy a pair of 3D clip-ons to go over my regular glasses for those rare times I might want to check out the gimmick. I tried them out on Thor 3D (paid for the 2D) and they worked fine. They were only $3.50 and I’m glad I bought them. They paid for themselves when I didn’t have to pay the extra money for the Thor 3D.
Besides the Avatar sequels and The Hobbit, the only other movie I’m even slightly interested in seeing in 3D is Martin Scorsese’s Hugo Cabret. I’m genuinely curious what an auteur will do with 3D in a regular, non-effects driven movie. I’ll see it first in 2D like a real movie, then I’ll go back and see the 3D (paying for the 2D). If it’s only released in 3D, I’ll pay for some other movie and then go into the 3D theater. If for some reason I can’t do that, I’ll see it when it gets to the cheap theaters that aren’t set up for 3D. If for some reason it doesn’t play those theaters, I’ll skip it altogether. My love of Martin Scorsese and Chloe Moretz will not overcome my disgust at having to pay extra for 3D.
Totally missed the edit window, but I want to be clear here, because it is a very important distinction:
I don’t hope that people who want to enjoy 3D have the medium wrenched from their trembling hands, forever banned and outlawed, the blueprints for the technology burned by government agents.
I hope that the whole 3D phenomenon turns out to be a fad. I hope that folks realize it isn’t enhancing film and decide to not spring for the extra cost and enjoy regular movies instead.
Do you see the difference there? Or no.
Sorry, guys. My last post was meant for Bosstone. I keep messing up today because I’m trying to work and post. Sorry again.