Read the fine print. It’s right there after the privacy waiver.
Whoa - whoa. That’s crazy talk.
I am literally (in the real sense) reading your post while wearing my “tell your dog I said hi” shirt. The shirt is a lovely lavender, and the dog is sniffing a yellow tulip.
I love it! I have a zip hoodie with a dog wearing a winter scarf around its neck with autumn leaves swirling around it. I’m going to have to get a t-shirt now!
I just got my T-shirt in the mail day before yesterday!
Today I’m wearing my Fighting Wiener Dogs Hockey Club sweatshirt (it’s a foggy day around here).
TIL the guy who wrote “The Martian” also wrote the short story “The Egg”.
And the webcomic “Casey and Andy”, man’s got some talent in him.
I dont bother with 3D films as IMHO the 3d effect is not worth the hassle of the glasses and also the cost,
What @DrDeth said. I’ll even go a bit further - if a film is offered in 3D it’s probably not that good in the first place and they’re just hedging the box office receipts.
In 3D films I find myself noticing the 3D and being pulled out of the movie.
If a film is made specifically for 3D and that is the preferred way the filmmaker wants it seen then I’ll see it that way. If it’s just a 3D conversion I would rather not.
To me that is a good reason to skip it.
Although I haven’t seen a lot of made-for-3D movies, the ones that I have seen tend to use the 3D as an obtrusive gimmick, with lots of shots of things flying toward the camera or poking towards it. It’s annoying.
That poll needs another option: “I go to movies, but never the kind that has an option of 3D or 2D.”
As for a films that works better in 3D, I suggest Herzog’s Cave of Forgotten Dreamssss.
I almost never see filling in 3D because it gives my daughter headaches, and i am often with her at that general type of film. So i guess i ain’t have a really strong opinion.
That sounds like you’re talking about the old style 3D, the kind with the red/blue glasses that was popular from about the 1950s-80s. That kind did create the illusion that stuff was coming out of the screen towards the audience, and a lot of filmmakers used it like you describe. But the new kind of 3D (which isn’t really that new anymore, it’s been around since Avatar at least) doesn’t have that effect. It’s more like you’re looking through the screen at a 3 dimensional world behind it.
It depends on the film-maker. Some go for 3D gimmicks, some don’t. I remember in the 1999 version of Journey to the Center of the Earth, there was one blatant gimmick shot at the beginning of the movie, but the rest of the film was more tastefully done.
If they are done with skill and taste, I like gimmicks.
I like motion.
I like sound.
I like music.
I like color.
I like 3D.
I like wide screens.
I like wraparound screens.
I like CGI.
If I have a choice between 3D and 2D, I choose 2D only because 3D looks slightly less bright and lower contrast than 2D. I like the 3D effect fine, but the image quality seems lower.
3D and surround sound makes me dizzy and nauseous. I rarely go to a cinema.
Ah yes, classics like…
