See Post #34.
Re-read the material posted. Cameron intends his next movie to be 3D-only - as were his last two films. Those never opened in 2D, and as I said earlier, I saw over 160 films in the theater last year. Waiting to see a film on DVD is not something I should have to do because James Cameron has decided I’m a second class citizen. Nothing compares to theatrical presentation. If I had been offered the option of seeing those two films in 2D, I would have. I wasn’t.
If you find it annoying, it’s likely that you share the same quirk.
I really have to ask. The presentation of 3D in movies mimics real life - it presents a different image to each eye in the same way that the real world does. Do you see double images when you’re not at the movies? If not, then you should be able to resolve a single image when you’re watching a 3D film. Perhaps you just need some practice.
You’re right, I didn’t see that it was going to be presented only in 3D. On the other hand, I really don’t see how you’re being treated any more unfairly than a blind person. Movies are designed to work with a particular sense. In the case of these movies, they’re designed to work on the ability to perceive 3D. The filmmakers aren’t required to abandon the technique just because a minority of theater goers can’t see in 3D. Calling yourself a second class citizen because you can’t see three movies is ridiculous, and faintly insulting to people who suffer from genuine discrimination.
No, 3D movies work fine for me. It’s just that I’ve never seen a movie where the 3D added anything to the experience. Plus, the glasses are uncomfortable.
When I stop to think about it, I do. But like JohnT earlier in the thread, when I’m not thinking about it my brain suppresses the information from my non-dominate eye and I see just fine. But with a “3D” presentation, I’m being force-fed a constantly changing 3D perspective.
I’m 47. If I could see stereo, living life would have provided all the practice I’d need, wouldn’t you think? And it’s not as if 3D movies are free. No, they tend to cost half again as much as a normal 2D movie. So it’s not like I can “practice” without spending $15 and getting a splitting headache.
Stereo photography is very nearly as old as photography; I’ve seen stereo daguerreotypes. Stereo cameras have been available for over 100 years. If this nonsense were so all-fired compelling and if every human being were equally able to see stereo images, why are 2D cameras the standard and 3D ones the oddity? Know anyone other than hobbyists who shoot their vacation snaps in 3D?
Because 3D is a gimmick. A useless frill that has nothing to do with storytelling. If they want to improve the movie going experience, they can lose the 24 frame per second frame-rate. Digital presentation allows any frame-rate, but Hollywood is stuck on this awful relic of it’s past. But that’s a different rant.
Read the whole thread. Descriptive Audio Service (for the blind) and “Rear Window” subtitling and IR headphones (for the deaf and hard-of-hearing) are two accommodations to make the theatrical experience available for everyone. The Americans with Disabilities Act has made filmmakers provide these facilities for those who cannot see and those who cannot hear. DVDs, with optional subtitles, are a great example of film-viewing becoming more accessible to both the deaf as well as people who don’t speak the language of the film. This move to force 3D film presentation on the public on the other hand is the rare instance of a regression. One group who has not been considered handicapped is going to become handicapped.
Of course they are, especially if one already wears glasses. You have two choices: expensive re-usable plastic glasses that are distributed and collected by theater employees at each showing (meaning that your nose is touching a piece of plastic touched by everyone who has worn those glasses) or, even worse, yet another of those pieces of cardboard with two pieces of polarized film in them - warped and distorted.
As I recall, I pointed out that you could still see the films on DVD, and you indicated that was unacceptable. Now you’re holding it up as a “great example” of making film viewing more accessible to people with disabilities. Which, apparently, now includes folks who can’t see in 3D. If it’s good enough for deaf people, why isn’t it good enough for you?
You too huh? 
Huh? Maybe bullet points will help:
[ul]
[li]“Rear Window” subtitling (link earlier) allows deaf people to see film in the theater[/li][li]“Descriptive Audio Service” on headphones allows blind people to see films in theater[/li][/ul]
These are services that make it possible for people with disabilities to enjoy films in the theater. Coincidentally, the same services are available on DVD.
Is that clear enough for you?
Right now considerable effort has been made to make the movie-going experience available for everyone. I think we can all agree that seeing a movie in the theater is a different experience than seeing a film at home on DVD. I have a home theater with a seven and a half foot screen and a very large library of DVD, but there is still nothing like seeing films in the theater. But the main advantage to seeing a film in the theater is this:I get to see the film six months earlier than waiting for it on DVD. If this 3D crap catches on, I’m going to be forced to do that. I’m going to be deprived of one of my favorite past-times, going to the theater to see movies with my wife. For what? So they can increase the price of tickets by 50% and make a good percentage of the audience uncomfortable with a gimmick that has failed every single time they’ve tried it?
“This time for sure!” - Bullwinkle
Seeing as how you don’t enjoy 3D films either, are you just arguing a position that you don’t actually hold for sport? If that’s the case, perhaps this should move to the Pit.
Actually, I suspect that if 3D catches on, it will be because they’ve figured out a way to make it work with the film in a way that is neither gimmicky nor uncomfortable. Long odds of it happening, but it would be interesting to see a revolution in film that’s the equivalent of synch sound. Yeah, it would leave you out in the cold, but I don’t think your personal enjoyment is sufficient reason to retard technological advance.
Seeing as your convinced that 3D will never catch on, the exact same sentiment would appear to apply to you, as well.
When sound first appeared, nobody paid much attention to the fact that deaf people could enjoy silent movies and would be missing out when the dialog was no longer on title cards. Back then, you were just SOL if you were deaf, in the same way that you were SOL if you were in a wheelchair and the place you wanted to go was inaccessible. But fortunately, we live in more enlightened times and “Rear Window” style subtitles are available and deaf people can enjoy a film without requiring someone to translate into ASL.
The odds of stereoscopic presentation ever becoming viewable for everyone is just about nil. If we were talking about a genuine 3D presentation, one that didn’t require anyone wear glasses, then I could see it just as I see the rest of the world.
It fails every time for the same reasons:
[ul]
[li]Glasses[/li][li]Eyestrain[/li][li]Gimmickry[/li][/ul]
Again, if this were going to only be used for special event/IMAX films, I could safely ignore it. But this is about major Hollywood releases ONLY being available in this moronic system. No 2D alternative. Cameron’s film “Avatar” will star Sigourney Weaver is exactly the sort of film I’d ordinarily be excited about. I’d be there for the midnight show. But if he follows through on his threats I’ll have to skip it.
There IS a method for viewing 3D movies that doesn’t require special glasses, and it’s been around for decades. But for some reason, there’s only one movie theater in the world equipped to show them, and it’s in Moscow.
Actually, there are two – the other system is true holographic movies, but that’s an incredibly nefficient medium. I saw a loppee 3D movie of bottles on a turntable at the now-departed Museum of Holography in New York many years ago. There as a holographic movie theater (again, in Russia) that could seat 4. That’s not a typo. Four. You can see why it never caught on.
Actually, I have no problem with seeing 3D movies, and never have, in any system – anaglyphic, old-style polarized, or the new style polarized. I’d like to see more 3D. I think it has incredible potential, and that some excellent 3D films have been made. Hithcock, who didn’t like it, used it to good and gimmick-free effect in Dial M for Murder. I think that, overall, The Creature from the Black Lagoon is excellently-made 3D, taking real advantage of the medium’s strength. I thought the Disney films Chicken Little and Mmeet the Robinsons were very well done 3D. It didn’t help that these were among the lesser animation offerings recentrly, though. The recent Beowulf worked very well in 3D. and had no gimmickry except for that stupid business with the Spear in the Face.
Shouldn’t the fact that the highest grossing 3D movie ever is a concert film of Hannah Montana prove that all your worrying about 3D becoming the norm anytime soon is just paranoia?
I mean, it’s Hannah Montana for pete’s sake. And even with the inflated ticket price that a 3D movie entails, the thing still only made like $60 million. That’s a drop in the bucket for a blockbuster movie today. And even 10,000 BC, which most people agree is a complete crapfest, has already made more.
I’ll say it again, James Cameron is a nut and he is probably the only director who will insist that his 3D movies are only played in 3D theaters. It’s sad that you won’t be able to see one movie by one director, but how many thousands of other movies are released every year?
A nut who has made the single most successful theatrical release in history? That’s the only thing that matters to studio executives. Everyone was predicting that “Titanic” would be a flop, but it wound up making more money than any other film (although “Deep Throat” was arguably more successful). If his 3D film succeeds, that means there’s going to be a LOT of 3D films.
But “succeed” in what definition of the word? To create Avatar Cameron has had to invent an entirely new 3D camera system. An expensive entirely new 3D camera system.
And I would argue that Titanic’s success had little to do with Cameron’s directing. First I’d go to the DiCaprio Factor (and its close cousin, the Repeat Business Factor), the Celine Dion Factor and the “This is the epic for our times!” Factor.
I’d imagine that if you stop a random Titanic fan on the street today and ask them who directed the movie, 50% wouldn’t know.
Erm. Not to detract from gaffa’s comments about 12% of guys who can’t see stereograms (huh, didn’t know that), but there’s also a significant percentage of people who get sick to their stomach when it comes to swoopy or shaky cameras in movies koffMichaelBaykoff. And can’t play FPS games, which makes me very sad. Team Fortress 2 or Portal, anyone?
Because of this, I highly doubt I’ll ever go see a 3D movie. Not when IMAX makes me turn six shades of green.
Given those two populations, I would also discount Cameron’s comments about 3D being the next frontier until they can solve those problems. :dubious:
That said, if anyone ever wants to hear my rant/explanation about RWS’s drawbacks and captioning in general, I’ll consider opening a different thread. For now, I’ll just say that while RWS is nice, it’s hardly a godsend for several reasons. 
Hmm… wasn’t there a xenomorph-lookalike in one of the background scenes? I don’t own a copy so I can’t check right now.
…oooh. I do! I’ll have to check. Good excuse to drop that back into the player. 