3D Movies

[pendell]

So, um.

I just got back from seeing "Toy Story 3". I had the privilege of viewing a small portion of it in 3D.

My impression of the experience was .. underwhelming. I mean, yeah, there was SOME depth, but it didn't really add anything that I wasn't already getting from the 2D movie. I didn't hate it -- MUCH better than the red-and-green 3D goggles we used in the 1970s -- but it didn't excite me either. Certainly not for the higher price theaters charge for them.

Is that just me? Am I just a grumpy old 39-year-old? Or do other people feel that way as well? I'm especially interested in the opinions of people in their teens and 20s.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Seraph]

its just a gimmicky fad that people insist isn't a fad because people have this bizarre notion that after being a fad once, if something becomes popular again then its going to stay popular permanently.

[kpenguin]

For me, the 3D where you barely notice it's 3D is the good kind of 3D. It feels... gimmicky otherwise.

[Dogmantra]

I don't like 3D films that dance around the fact that they're 3D and scream in your face "HEY LOOK LOOK AT ME I HAVE THREE DIMENSIONS LOOK I'M SPECIAL WATCH OUT STUFF IS FLYING AT YOU"

I do, on the other hand, like subtle 3D that doesn't rub it in, but is still there. I think How to Train your Dragon is a good example - perfectly watchable in 2D, but in 3D it's nothing but improved. You just need to strike the balance between subtlety and actually putting some damn 3D in the film.

[Zocelot]

For some reason, movie makers seem to think that because Avatar did well and had 3D, their movies will do well if they have 3D.

[Makensha]

It is going to surface eventually, so I might as well be the one to do it. Avatar was vastly improved by it's use of 3D. I think it has to do with them using 3D to give you an experience you couldn't get in a 2D movie instead of having things jump at you. I haven't seen Train your Dragon, but I recall hearing a mention of how the 3D was used to great success for the feeling of flight.

Edit: Ninja'd (sort of)

[Shas aia Toriia]

For some reason, movie makers seem to think that because Avatar did well and had 3D, their movies will do well if they have 3D.

This. A thousand times over.
Heck, half the reason Avatar did so well was just because of the director - throw it on some no-name director's name and have it been made in 3 years, it wouldn't have been the huge spectacle it is today.

[Innis Cabal]

There were tons of movies before Avatar that had 3D that did well. UP! for example. I don't think its because of Avatar. I just think its people trying to do a new technology.

[Kiren]

The one thing about avatar that we all can agree on, it was a feast for the eyes, the 3D was exactly where it needed to be, and it felt seamless.

[Starscream]

I do, on the other hand, like subtle 3D that doesn't rub it in, but is still there. I think How to Train your Dragon is a good example - perfectly watchable in 2D, but in 3D it's nothing but improved. You just need to strike the balance between subtlety and actually putting some damn 3D in the film.

Agreed. That movie made excellent use of the technology. I also thought Up was excellent in 3D, and didn't just wave the action in your face.

Haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet. Might go tomorrow, but I don't know if I'll spring for the 3D or not. The last two were fine without it. They were re-released in 3D a little while ago, which was fine, but it didn't add much.

[The Glyphstone]

I hate 3-d movies because:

1) I wear glasses, and the 3-D goggles never sit right over them.
2) The tint in the lenses makes it really hard to see what's going on in the movie sometimes, to the point where I'll put up with blurriness because it's better than murky, shadowy darkness.

[Zevox]

I haven't seen many 3D movies - just Shrek Forever After recently, and before that a few I cannot remember, but at the time they were still using those cheap cardboard blue-and-red glasses instead of the new ones, so it's been a while - but my opinion is that it didn't seem to add anything to the film the vast majority of the time. At worst, there were a few "stuff jumps out at you moments" that were annoying. At best, there was a single scene, with the group flying on the back of Dragon, that might have been more impressive visually because of the 3D. But even that wasn't a big deal. So for the most part a movie being in 3D for me just means that I get the annoyance of having to wear a second pair of glasses to see it. Whoop-de-doo.

Haven't seen Toy Story 3, not sure if I will or won't. Might just wait until it hits DVD and rent it. I will be seeing The Last Airbender in a couple weeks, but I'll be going to that one in 2D. Everything I've heard indicates that movies converted from 2D to 3D, as that one was, tend not to look so great in 3D, and the best I could tell from the trailer before Shrek Forever After indicates that, like Shrek, the 3D by and large doesn't add anything to it anyway.

This is also why I'm not excited about Nintendo's 3DS because of its 3D capabilities - I expect that the same will hold true for video games, and 3D really won't add anything to them anyway. I am excited about it because it's Nintendo's next-gen handheld and seems to have some good games lined up for it already, and it won't require those annoying glasses to see the 3D, but those are another matter entirely.

Incidentally, since the OP was interested in what younger people thought, I should mention that I'm in my early 20s.

Zevox

[Tirian]

For some reason, movie makers seem to think that because Avatar did well and had 3D, their movies will do well if they have 3D.

There are certainly perks, so long as the general consensus is that there is a quality difference. The main thing is that nobody can sit back and say "Meh, I'll wait six months (or less) for the DVD to come out" because it will be years before you or one of your friends gets a 3D home theater. We can't even wait for a second-run theater, and I don't know about where you live but here there aren't even matinee discounts for our IMAX/3-D movies. That's a significant revenue stream for the movie, and high box office numbers then reinforce the message that the movie is good, and you then get more people going next weekend.

[Strawberries]

I'm probably a grumpy 26 years old, but I share pendell's opinion.

I've only seen a couple of 3D movies (Coraline, Avatar and Train your dragon come to mind), but I always find that the glasses are unconfortable, and somehow everything is too dark while wearing them. Moreover, I don't use glasses, but my boyfriend, who does, has a really hard time if he forgets to wear contact lenses.

My main complaint, I guess, is that for me 3D doesn't add anything to the movie. I enjoyed Coraline in 3D, but enjoyed it just the same when I saw it on DVD. On the other hand, I loathed Avatar, and no amount of 3D could change that for me (it somehow made it even worse: I was stuck in that cinema, wearing that unconfortable glasses, for almost three hours :smallsigh:).

[Turcano]

Aside from the gimmicky nature, my major problem with 3D is that when there's a lot of movement on the edges of the screen, it creates a strobe-like effect in my peripheral vision and it annoys the HELL out of me.

[Grumman]

This. A thousand times over.
Heck, half the reason Avatar did so well was just because of the director - throw it on some no-name director's name and have it been made in 3 years, it wouldn't have been the huge spectacle it is today.
What? Do you even remember what it was like before Avatar was released? People were acting like it was going to be the next Waterworld.

[Philistine]

What? Do you even remember what it was like before Avatar was released? People were acting like it was going to be the next Waterworld.

Which people were those? Everything I heard was "Avatar, YAY! 3D, YAY! This is going to be teh bestest movie EVAR!"

[sol-decentguy]

I dunno I kinda feel that companies are just pushing a new technology on consumers. I don't mind 3-D movies where it works with the premise of the movie (Avatar, Aliens v Monsters, ect) but just like the push of the blueray disc a couple of years ago, it has now become something every movie is trying to force moviegoers (and soon to be TV watchers) to invest in :smallsigh:
I personally think its not worth it.

[Brewdude]

It's just an excuse to charge you more, and to differentiate the movie going experience from downloading or watching on tv.

[pendell]

Brewdude, I think you're exactly right. A marketing trick to get people to the theater rather than watching it at home.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm especially interested in the opinions of people in their teens and 20s.

He that's me!

Anyway, as for my opinion, 3D effects and other special effects can't make up for lack of a good story (you hear that George Lucas and James Cameron). They can however enhance the experience provided the film makers don't just look for instances where 3D would be best.

[toasty]

I havent watched a recent 3D movie (Avatar, etc) but I don't think it sounds too amazing. I mean, honestly, unless it like... completely makes the movie totally different, then I don't think it's worth it, and it does not appear that 3D does that, yet.

[Joran]

I'll continue to add to the echo chamber. I've seen one movie in 3-D, Coraline. I wear glasses and the 3-D glasses were a pain to put on over my normal ones.

In addition, I got a massive headache and my eyes hurt after a while, so I had to slip off the glasses and close my eyes for a bit before I could resume. I seem to be in that minority of people where the 3-D gives me headaches and nausea. So, no, I won't be returning.

[Leecros]

In addition, I got a massive headache and my eyes hurt after a while, so I had to slip off the glasses and close my eyes for a bit before I could resume. I seem to be in that minority of people where the 3-D gives me headaches and nausea. So, no, I won't be returning.

i get that with some of the older 3D stuff back when it was first being explored, i haven't seen any 3D movies lately to know if it still does or not.


as for 3D itself...until the characters reach out and physically attack me i will not be impressed.

[chiasaur11]

They're good if they have Count Floyd, though.

[Little_Rudo]

Recently turned 22 year old here; Toy Story 3 in 3D was my birthday present. :)

I'm actually going to say that I like 3D... even though I really shouldn't. I wear glasses because I'm very near-sighted in one eye, so I need to wear the 3D glasses over my own to get the right effect. But I do like it. It makes movies seem more lush, even those movies that don't utilize 3D effects very much. (Mainly those movies that were made in 2D and converted to 3D when Avatar hit it big.) While some movies haven't used the technology well, more and more movies will be filmed with 3D viewing in mind now that 3D is the "in" thing and we'll hopefully see some great uses for it within a few years.

For me, when I want to see a movie, I go to the theater for the experience. I don't mind waiting a few months to rent a movie; if I decide to go to the theater, it's for the big screen, the surround sound, the air conditioning, the audience... I go for the "experience", not just to see a movie sooner than usual. At my local theater, a 3D matinee is $2 more than a regular matinee ticket, so adding on the $2 to increase the experience is worth it.

The next bit is on 3D gaming, and since that's off-topic (albeit related), I'll spoil it.Personally, I think 3D gaming is going to become commonplace before 3D home movies will be commonplace. In a movie, you spend 2-3 hours looking at exactly what the director wants you to see. In a game, you spend anywhere from a few to 100 hours exploring an environment. In addition, immersion is often important: Games like Animal Crossing and Nintendogs strive for players to feel connected to their village or their pets. 3D will help those games. Once console games begin to utilize 3D (which I expect to be commonplace when 3D TVs are more common) I believe shooters will receive a huge boon from 3D effects.

[Peanut Gallery]

Going to throw in a vote "Pro-3D" here. Love the added effect, the glasses don't negatively affect my vision, and its a neat bit of technology that makes it worth going to a theatre instead of waiting for the DVD.

That said some movies didn't need 3D and it didn't add anything. UP in 3D was just as good as normal. Monsters vs Aliens was improved. Avatar was improved. How to Train Your Dragon was improved. I can't imagine Toy Story3 being improved but I haven't seen it. Shrek Forever After, not improved.

If I were going to the theatre and I had the option to see the movie in 3D instead of normal I would take it every time. Because its not that much extra then a normal ticket, and if I'm willing to blow money on a movie, might as well go the whole hog. Its been worth it more often then not for me.

P.S. Age:26

[Emperor Ing]

I'm gonna throw in my vote for the anti-3D crowd. I might be a traditionalist, but it just seems to me that this 3D thing is a stupid gimmick that does little for the movie experience and does more to milk you of your money when you go to see it.

[Yulian]

They're good if they have Count Floyd, though.

You win teh internets for today.

AWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

But I haven't seen 3D to add much to the viewing experience for me. Frankly, the best use of it in Avatar was for the console displays the humans had. That made them actually look like what they were going for. The naturey stuff didn't do anything for me because the real world doesn't look like the 3D process on screen.

So the displays worked because such a thing in the real world would actually look like it appeared on the screen.

Just my opinion.

- Yulian

[jlvm4]

I find 3D to be irrelevant in most cases, and in some, downright detracting. While it can do a good job of making you feel immersed in the scene (the subtle 3D effect where things don't necessarily jump out at you), it often blurrs the action when things speed up. I saw How to Train Your Dragon both ways and actually preferred the 2D because I actually 'saw' more of the movie, rather than having things get blurry. Avatar was the same way. Loved it when the camera was panning slowly, but hated it when the action got fast.

[Lord Loss]

I'm a teenager, and I love 3D movies. I find the experience vastly superior to that of a 2D movie. I like movies with slight 3D effects and thre occaisional jump-out-of-the-screen effect. I always try and grab stuff as it comes out of the screen. Can't wait for 3D horror movies...

[Cyrion]

Not a 3D fan. Also not in my 20s, but hey... I'm one of those people for whom 3D doesn't work very well. I just don't see a lot of difference, though I'm fortunate that it doesn't come with any of the annoying side effects except a higher ticket price.

[Jimp]

3D movies hurt my eyes and make focusing on anything on screen difficult for me. Therefore, I do not like them.

[Maelstrom]

And now, for your viewing, er, pleasure (I suppose if you're into that sorta thing), I present the Smurfs...in 3d. Because next summer, our world is about to get.....



Smurf'd.


http://www.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK//video/imdb/vi4122347033/


Worst trailer ever? And in 3d to boot. I'm really beginning to hate whoever is stealing from my childhood.

3d with glasses is just lame. Sorry, do not see the appeal.

[Mauther]

I'm in my 30's so take my opinion with the necessary grain of salt, but I'm in the anti-3D crowd. Have not been impressed so far with the #D effect. Its largely cumbersome, its not immersive, it mutes colors, it limits peripheral vision meaning that panoramics are difficult to take in.

The attraction of 3D is the high ticket prices. Because of the high tickets for regular films, even on high quality digital units, most people consider movies an event. Once you've convinced consumers to go along with a $12 ticket, its not all that hard to jack them up to $15-$18 for a ticket. Make it a true event like IMAX 3D and that exclusivity is good from another couple of bucks. Once you cross the $10 threshhold, you've lost the bargain hunters anyways. From the theater's perspective you need to fleece the gate for as much as you can. Since they can't figure out how to increase the number of customers (due to home theater competition), they have to maximize the revenue off of the people showing up.

[enigmatime]

People have mentioned the whole "look at me! I'm in 3-D!" thing but no one has mentioned the worst movie imaginable that violates the eyes as much as SpyKids: Game Over. It is always all in your face about it being in 3-D but it is just horrible about it. Avatar was a stunning movie. I'm not saying this because of the 3-D but because of the artwork. I plan on seeing Toy Story 3 but not in 3-D. (I'm in my mid-teens)

[Zen Monkey]

(Insert joke here, regarding people injuring themselves at home from 3D adult movies.)