I fall into that group that has problems with 3D projections. As it happens, I wen to a “Real D” 3D showing because my husband wanted to see the 3D so much.
It is an improvement over prior 3D technologies I’ve seen. Yes, yes, you have the dorky glasses and fitting them over my regular glasses isn’t wonderful but at least they stayed in place reasonably well. The outdoor scenes worked well for me, and there weren’t overwhelming gimmicky “every arrow aimed directly at your face!” features (some stuff did come at you, but it made sense, it wasn’t gratuitous).
I had two problems with it - indoor scenes in small rooms were a problem, as the depth looked very exaggerated and fake to me and my eyes had trouble focusing properly. The other was that holographic projection table in the control room, my eyes could not make sense of that during the film (in 2D previews and trailers, just fine), it was just an incoherent mass of color and line. At one point I actually had to stop looking at the screen, it was that bad.
So while the 3D was very immerse and breathtaking at times, at other times it jolted me out of the movie experience. Take that as you will. I’d consider seeing another film with the same technology, but I’d go in knowing that there would be times it could completely fall apart and render the movie unviewable in those spots.
Bad analogy. As it happens, I am also colorblind. Like the vast majority of people who are “colorblind” I actually DO see color. My world is not black and white. Also, being colorblind does not impair my ability to watch a movie in color, realistic color looks just as much so to me as to you even if what we are watching looks a bit different to each of us. On the other hand, 3D projection DOES impact my ability to watch and enjoy a movie.
In my area there are very, very few theaters NOT showing it in 3D. One showing at a theater 30 miles away. This is not convenient. Cameron didn’t want to release a 2D option at all from what I’ve heard. It’s very clear to me that the movie industry is quite happy to leave 10% of its customer base out in the cold. It is galling to be forced to pay more money for an “improvement” that causes eyestrain, irritation, and even actual nausea and pain in some people.
I saw it in 2D at my local cineplex. They had one theater that was showing it in 3D, and at least 2 more showing it in 2D. As I didn’t want to wait the 2ish hours until the next 3D showing, we bought tickets for the regular theater.
Haven’t seen Avatar yet, but I did recently see the Jim Carey A Christmas Carol in 3D and it was quite engrossing. It strained my eyes for the first 10 minutes or so, but they gradually adjusted.
(Bolding added by me.) If that’s true, I’d like to cordially invite Cameron to go choke on a pair of 3D goggles. I get motion sickness with a lot of these 3D movies, and also just the plain no-glasses but mega-motion IMAX films, to the point where I have to close my eyes and keep them shut, or just leave the film.
This is my concern, I don’t think some people realize many Americans don’t live right next to multiple movie theaters that are showing the film in regular format. For example there are two relatively close theaters to where I live, both showing it exclusively in 3D. There is another theater about a 25 minute drive from my house that is showing it in 2D.
In the grand scheme of things 25 minutes isn’t a huge deal, but for me at least a movie is something I’ll set out to catch typically on a whim. I’m a big moviegoer, but I tend to go see a movie I’m interested in when the “mood strikes me”, usually within 7 days of its release. Since the two theaters near my house are no more than 10 minutes away, I can do it quickly and conveniently. When it’s 25 minutes away, that’s almost an hour round-trip travel time, and I become much less likely to do it on a whim.
That’s roughly 90% of my movie viewing. The other 10% are the rare occasions I’ll got to a movie with a friend or a date; I’m a bit different from the mainstream in that I prefer to go to a movie I’m really interested in seeing by myself.
So if it becomes par for the course that I’m looking at an hour round-trip every time a movie comes out that I want to see, I won’t be seeing very many movies in the theaters anymore.
It will also mean that I’m much more likely to go to a torrent website and download a screener copy.
I do periodically, it was much more often when I was in the Army and stationed in near cities with active theater scenes. You’ll occasionally get some decent productions that travel to these parts, and there are always some sort of local stuff going on (usually of moderately low quality, I’m sad to say.)
This was the first 3D movie I’ve seen since ye olden days–The last 3D movies I saw were at Expo 86. The depth effects in Avatar were well done; pretty neat, but not really worth the extra $$ to me. (I saw the RealD non-IMAX version.)
I did take off the glasses a few times. There seemed to be non-3D bits where the image was quite clear/in focus, but the majority of the movie would have been unwatchable without the specs.
I saw the 3-D version of Avatar and the 3-D effects seemed very unnatural to me.
The only time the 3-D f/x stood out was when the scene looked like it was cut and pasted together. Whole objects were set in the scene at various depths but the objects themselves were flat. Like a pop-up book.
They made heavy use of it in interior shots but couldn’t seem to make it work for certain scenery shots. For example the first time they see the floating mountains and the female pilot says “You should see your faces” they gave you a wide shot of the terrain, and it’s completely flat.
For some reason, the stuff that I say in Cafe Society can really piss people off in a way that baffles me. But nothing puzzled me as much as the way people responded to the fact that I said I wish the 3D thing would play out, since my daughter can’t enjoy it (she can’t see in 3D).
I mean, who cares if I personally am rooting against 3D? It’s not like I’m rooting against a cure for cancer. People are SERIOUS BUSINESS about 3D on this board.
Hey, at the Avatar screening I went to, I barely managed to find a seat 15 minutes before showtime; and when the credits started rolling, damn near everyone there broke out in applause. The last time I heard clapping in a theater, it was a performance of I, Pagliacci.
The new 3D makes an impression. People rooting against it rankles like someone hoping “talkies” peter out because they can’t stand the actors’ voices…or that they only watch colorized movies because black and white looks so stupid, and they just can’t get into it.
I have a question before this thread becomes an argument. I was unable to watch the DVD of Coraline in 3D and had to flip the disk over for the 2 D version. I haven’t watched any big screen movies in 3D since some whatever number that really bad Jaws movie was back in the 80’s. My eyes were fine with that, but they couldn’t deal with Coraline. I’m planning on seeing Avatar in 3D Christmas day. I know the tech behind the 3D is different for all three, so what are my chances for being able to see Avatar in all its 3D glory?
Yes. Very different technologies. The 3-D versions of movies they are putting out on DVD have to be done using the old 1950s blue/red filters. Absolutely atrocious trying to watch a movie at home that way.
The new theatre technique uses polarized grey lenses. For whatever reason this technology can not be utilized on televisions. They are a world apart from your Coraline DVD. Everything remains in color, no blue/red strobing effect, etc.
I wear glasses too and hate 3D because of it, but with Avatar, it was worth the annoyance because of all the wonderful details. The 3D was subtle but very effective. I feel sorry for people who can’t see 3D, and I felt sorry for myself because I couldn’t enjoy it thoroughly because of my stupid glasses. It was still worth it though. I’d love to get a pair of prescription 3D glasses. Does anyone even make them?
I plan to see the movie again in 2D, and I think I’ll try and catch an IMAX showing at least once before it leaves.
Ask yourself why that should ‘rankle’. Seriously. In one thread, it rankled enough for the name calling to get started. I finally had to back out of that thread on my tip toes with my hands up.
Coraline didn’t use the old blue/red thing though. I remember those things and I could see the 3D just fine. Coraline came with glasses that were both colored grey. I’m willing to gamble that I’ll see the 3D in Avatar, though.
Mainly because I just really want to be able to see it like that. I guess I’ll find out Christmas Day. The way my plans are set up, theres no turning back anyway.
I’m ok with 3 D movies, but they give my daughter a headache and when she gets a headache, she throws up. A lot.
Fortunately the local theater so far has shown all the kids movies in both versions , we just have to check the listing carefully so we don’t end up at the wrong version.
So at least for awhile, I hope that kid movies in 3D continue to have an alternative. I also hope she outgrows it.
I, personally, wouldn’t spring for the IMAX. The screen is too big for a 3D movie, as you can’t see the entire screen in your field of vision without moving your neck around. For some reason, that gets disorienting and dizzy, especially when the fuzzy double-vision 2D image gets seen out of your peripheral vision.
Heck, I’d start with the “fans seeing a marvelous, incredible looking cinematic experience, and then some guy comes in saying ‘this is dumb. I hope it just goes away.’” angle.
