I dislike 3D movies because I wear glasses, and trying to wear those 3D glasses over my prescription glasses is a prancing pain. I practically have to hold the 3D glasses on over my prescrips the whole time, for as often as I have to push them up.

Also, I have yet to see a movie in 3D that really needed to be 3D. I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D; the 3D only really kicked in when the camera was moving, and even then, the effect was less "OH GOD IT'S LIKE I'M THERE" and more "SOMEBODY'S EPILEPTIC DOG IS OPERATING THIS CAMERA." If the camera was still, any "3D" effect was lost, and the image just looked darker.

I think 3D movies are okay. I've only seen a few in 3D, and most were animated. What I really don't like are the previews beforehand. Since they're all in 3D as well, they're trying to throw as much crap at you as they can in their 1 and a half minute spot. It can be really obnoxious.

Sure the 3D can be gimmicky, but when it's done right (I though Coraline looked absolutely amazing) or when the effects are very slight (the Toy Story trilogy), it can make for a very enjoyable experience.

Does anyone else go cross-eyed when trying to read the text in 3d movies?

SanityOutTheWindow wrote:Does anyone else go cross-eyed when trying to read the text in 3d movies?

Me!
Though I've only seen on 3D movie (Alice in Wonderland) it sucked so much (not the movie) everything was horribly blurry it was also very dark, the only times I saw 3D stuff was the poor hedgehog, some snowflake like things and the butterfly at the end.
I wanted to see UP, HTTYD and Cloudy with a Chance in 3D, but I couldn't because the 3D in Alice in Wonderland gave me headaches.
And then I bought the DVD's.

The troublesome part in my situation is for the far sighted or people that needed glasses to see the movie. It was a pain in the butt for me to watch movies in 3D clearer without wearing my glasses underneath it and having to keep on readjusting them.

And plus, you don't even know if the movie is actually going to have 3D throughout the movie or it's just another gimmick getting more cash. I saw a movie in IMAX 3D with my friends and only 1/4 of the movie was in 3D. So after that experience I plan to keep on sticking to 2D and only one theatre actually provides the movie in both 2D and 3D while everywhere else is just going along with the 3D fad.

I just want to preserve my eyesight longer dammit.

I seem to be one of the few who liked Avatar. Pity. Well, it's not like I've never had to stand alone with an unpopular opinion before. Anyway...

What Avatar did right is that it was made for 3D. And whoever said it was used wrong because nothing flew out at you, tango that carp with a knife. That's not filmmaking, it's a cheap gimmick leftover from the 50's matinees. Watching Avatar in 3D was like looking through a window rather than at a screen. The cinematography emphasized complex scenery with multiple layers and deep horizons. That was well-done.

On the other hand, most of the movies being screened in 3D now were not actually shot in 3D, as was previously mentioned. Consequently, the stereoscopic effect starts to blur as soon as anything moves. I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D and I can only say that I'm glad I got in free. At one point I took my 3D glasses off for about 10 minutes and I honestly could not tell the bloody difference. I could not have cocked it up any worse if they tried.

Similarly, the utterly gratuitous Clash of the Titans remake not only committed the unforgivable sin of actually having fewer monsters than the original, but they retrofitted it for 3D and ended up turning it into a blurry mess. So now the audience doesn't even get to enjoy some nice visuals.

This is really symptomatic of Hollywood's critical fault right now. They're trying desperately to combat piracy and the rapid speed of communication that can kill a movie in days, but rather than just making better movies and appealing to more demographics, they go the route of the gimmick. They have no idea how to deconstruct a problem.

I don't like 3D movies. The glasses hurt my nose, I get a headache afterwards, and some movies just shouldn't have 3D, like Clash of the Titans. 3D is only good when stuff comes out at you, but when it's Toy Story 3, for example, it doesn't make the movie any more special or exciting.

I saw HTTYD is 3D and loved it. same with Avatar. But they meant to do it in 3D. What annoyes me is not things are in 3D that shouldn't be. Case in point:

STEP UP FREAKIN 3D.

*finds wall and bangs head*

Meagan wrote:3D is only good when stuff comes out at you,

No it's not because that's gimmicky sturgeon. When movies first debuted a century ago, audiences would run screaming out of the theater because they thought the train moving toward the camera was actually going to run them over. Have we seriously regressed so far that we now use stereoscopic effects to recreate that moment of naivete?

3D should be used to emphasize the depth of a shot. In a movie like Avatar that works because James Cameron focused on cinematography with deep horizon lines and composition. But the Jim Carrie adaptation of A Christmas Carol was just hectic, gimmicky crap to show off the 3D and accomplished nothing else. It was a complete and utter waste that used the, "Holy carp, it's coming right for me!" gimmick to trick you into watching a shitty movie.

^ Friggin thank you!! A good 3D movie shouldn't be trying to pop stuff out at you. Its especially jarring when you see it in 2 D and stuff that's supposed to be flying at you when they don't. -____-

The first 3D movies I ever saw were those 'educational' ones about bugs or turtles or whatever, where they made stuff pop out at you to make it more interesting. When I was a kid I loved it. The butterflies! They're right in front of you!
But now, either way, I don't really care. I'm not going to like a movie more or less just because of 3D-ness. I don't care about the 'right way' 3D should be used, as long as they DON'T MAKE EVERY FREAKING MOVIE 3D.
I don't really like disagreeing with people about stuff I don't feel strongly about. I'm a wimp like that.

Meagan wrote:The first 3D movies I ever saw were those 'educational' ones about bugs or turtles or whatever, where they made stuff pop out at you to make it more interesting. When I was a kid I loved it. The butterflies! They're right in front of you!

That's the thing: you were a kid. Novelty is much more impressive at that age because you're still very rapidly soaking up information. It's only toward the end of maturation that you begin to get a sense of context based on experience. Well... generally speaking anyway.

It all comes down to the fact that Avatar was in 3D and made a shitload of money, so Hollywood thinks that 3D is the best way to make even more shitloads of money as opposed to making, you know... good movies.

Eh, I'm alright with 3D movies for the most part. I mean, most things really don't have a need to be in 3D, nor do they make much of a difference...but sometimes it's nice, IMHO.

I kinda hope the 3D-EVERYTHING craze mellows out, because honestly? Most things don't need to be in 3D. One example? Yu-Gi-Oh!. The new movie is going to be in 3D. WTF?

Cards wrote:Eh, I'm alright with 3D movies for the most part. I mean, most things really don't have a need to be in 3D, nor do they make much of a difference...but sometimes it's nice, IMHO.

I kinda hope the 3D-EVERYTHING craze mellows out, because honestly? Most things don't need to be in 3D. One example? Yu-Gi-Oh!. The new movie is going to be in 3D. WTF?

What YGO movie, and why the hell would it be in 3D? Well, the monsters might look badass in 3D, I dunno...

TrippedUp wrote:

Cards wrote:Eh, I'm alright with 3D movies for the most part. I mean, most things really don't have a need to be in 3D, nor do they make much of a difference...but sometimes it's nice, IMHO.

I kinda hope the 3D-EVERYTHING craze mellows out, because honestly? Most things don't need to be in 3D. One example? Yu-Gi-Oh!. The new movie is going to be in 3D. WTF?

What YGO movie, and why the hell would it be in 3D? Well, the monsters might look badass in 3D, I dunno...

I'm not sure what one, but I just heard it from a friend the works in a movie theater and is a Yu-Gi-Oh! nerd. And I really don't know if it'd be worth the extra two bucks for it.

Cards wrote:

TrippedUp wrote:

Cards wrote:Eh, I'm alright with 3D movies for the most part. I mean, most things really don't have a need to be in 3D, nor do they make much of a difference...but sometimes it's nice, IMHO.

I kinda hope the 3D-EVERYTHING craze mellows out, because honestly? Most things don't need to be in 3D. One example? Yu-Gi-Oh!. The new movie is going to be in 3D. WTF?

What YGO movie, and why the hell would it be in 3D? Well, the monsters might look badass in 3D, I dunno...

I'm not sure what one, but I just heard it from a friend the works in a movie theater and is a Yu-Gi-Oh! nerd. And I really don't know if it'd be worth the extra two bucks for it.

D: The hell?! For me it's like friggin 4 more!!! And its already 11.50 a ticket!

TrippedUp wrote:D: The hell?! For me it's like friggin 4 more!!! And its already 11.50 a ticket!

Wait...really? D: At the movie theater in my town it's seven bucks for a matinee ticket that isn't 3D. <.< Nonmatinee is nine. 3D is nine then twelve. >.>

Five words, Beauty and the Beast 3D.

UGH!

Didn't they already re-re-release it a while ago? Why do they have to do something like that now? Oh yeah.. MONEY!

Oni wrote:Five words, Beauty and the Beast 3D.

UGH!

Didn't they already re-re-release it a while ago? Why do they have to do something like that now? Oh yeah.. MONEY!

Explain to me how you make a 2D/limited 3D film into a 3D movie. Making 2D objects pop out would just look weird. You could get the level of depth if you do stuff in the CAPS software used for the movie or in older movies if the cels were re-shot with a 3D camera.

yaelxyz wrote:I like 3D movies when you can actually feel the 3D. I mean, if something flies right next to you, or you try to grab a flower, then that's a sign for a good 3D movie for me!
Which is why Avatar was completely pointless in 3D. Nothing came at me. I hardly even felt it.

A 3-D movie is not meant to have things fly out at you; that is just a complete joke towards filmography.
It is meant to create an illusion of giving the movie more depth and perception, to give the feeling of
someone actully having some interactivity with their own mind. It's the best I can describe, but I'm sure
you can understand my point.

So I went to see Toy Story 3...again...because my dad really wanted to see it in 3D with me. I kept telling him it was more expensive and I didn't care much for it, but he didn't believe me until he actually saw the cost of the tickets + glasses. The 3D effects didn't make the movie any better, and it gave me a massive headache afterward. Yeah, this is definitely not my thing.

strangeworld15 wrote:

yaelxyz wrote:I like 3D movies when you can actually feel the 3D. I mean, if something flies right next to you, or you try to grab a flower, then that's a sign for a good 3D movie for me!
Which is why Avatar was completely pointless in 3D. Nothing came at me. I hardly even felt it.

A 3-D movie is not meant to have things fly out at you; that is just a complete joke towards filmography.
It is meant to create an illusion of giving the movie more depth and perception, to give the feeling of
someone actully having some interactivity with their own mind. It's the best I can describe, but I'm sure
you can understand my point.

Very much this.

Having things "pop out" is just...terrible. Being into film and video, it makes me cringe. A lot. It's one of the reasons I hate the new Alice in Wonderland movie. So far, I have never seen it pulled off well. Ever.

And I believe that's a great way to describe 3D. Basically what I feel about it, I just couldn't describe it in words.

The only time I've seen the "pop-out" thing done well was a conservation film at a sea life centre place thingy in Portugal, and that was just showing sad animals with their habitats being destroyed. But if you do it in a proper, theatrical film, then you might as well just tango yourself with gimmicks.

I can tolerate 3D, barely. I came out of Toy Story 3 with a desperate need for painkillers because it hurt my head, they make my eyes water (this was a good cover-up for the fact that I cried like a baby throughout the damn film) but Clash of the Titans? Seriously? That was the worst display of 3D I'd ever seen. My friend came out saying the only decent thing about that film was Sam Worthington's thighs, and that's stretching it.

TrippedUp wrote:I saw HTTYD is 3D and loved it. same with Avatar. But they meant to do it in 3D. What annoyes me is not things are in 3D that shouldn't be. Case in point:

STEP UP FREAKIN 3D.

*finds wall and bangs head*

My thoughts exactly. How high would you have to be to think "let's make another dance movie but this time...IN 3D! We'll make millions!!" If someone wanted to go and see a realistic and "3D" dance performance, they'd just go see a real life dance show. Probably be cheaper too.

3D is quickly becoming a gimmick that everyone wants their hands on, not just in movies either. Since several movies made in 3D went on to be insanely successful (HTTYD) some directors are deciding to make a movie that wasn't designed for it into a 3D movie. It would be like filming half the movie then deciding to use a completely different actor for the main lead.

Some movies work in 3D others don't. But I think animated movies work better than 'real-life' movies unless there is an extraordinary amount of fantasy in the movie and/or the CGI and all that is done well.

All in all, I have gone to see a TON of 3D movies and sometimes the previews look better than the movie. Plus I wear glasses and while I can go without my glasses, no problems, I still get the occasional head-ache.

3D movies that I am looking forward to though: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1. I have my finger crossed.