Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I saw Thor the other day and it cost me $17.50 for one ticket! The other "cheaper" showtime was "only" $15.50. You might think one of those was more expensive because it was 3D but you would be wrong because they were both in 3D. One had super-duper sound with 3D is all. Although we weren't planning on paying $17.50 we had to because that's how the timing worked out. Turns out the sound was amazing and actually worth the extra money. There's a scene were Thor throws his hammer through a line of frost giants and the sound was so good you felt each impact! But I'll tell you what wasn't worth the extra money, the god damn 3D! It absolutely detractred from the experience. This is a very bright, colourful film but the 3D made it blurry, grey and dull.

I hate 3D. I'm using Thor as an example but it seems every movie comes out in crappy 3D now. It costs more and it looks worse. When I look up showtimes online I specifically look for non-3D version only to get to the theatre and find out it is indeed in 3D. Nowadys its the norm to not have any 2D version.

Anyways, rant over. How do you guys feel about this growing phenomenom?

IMO, they use 3D as an excuse to up the price and stop people from filming the screen. Cause if they put them online it's all blurry.

That said, i don't hate 3D, but it feels more or less like a gimmick to me...

The only thing i hate about it is that i have to put glasses on my glasses to watch the movie. Its really annoying.

I can't actually see 3d so I'm not the biggest fan.

Glasses are uncomfortable for me at the best of times, so 3D movies never make my 'Must-Watch' list simply because i'll be adjusting the glasses every 5 seconds.

sillyboy wrote:IMO, they use 3D as an excuse to up the price and stop people from filming the screen. Cause if they put them online it's all blurry.

That's absolutely what's going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:I can't actually see 3d so I'm not the biggest fan.

Are you a cyclops? j/k. I rarely "get" the 3D effect either but that's often because it's bad 3D. Filmed in 2D but then turned into 3D badly afterwards for the monetary reasons stated above.

I can't stand 3D, if a movie is playing in 3D I usually don't watch it. I personally will start caring for 3D when we can achieve it without the glasses, and even then it's not like it makes movies better.

It's also unfortunate that 3D is the new motion control in video-gaming. I don't want a stupid controller, I don't want to get off my couch, and I don't want to wear silly glasses.

My only gripe with it is that the glasses make everything *dull*... So the colors and what not arent as intense.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I can't actually see 3d so I'm not the biggest fan.

Are you a cyclops? j/k. I rarely "get" the 3D effect either but that's often because it's bad 3D. Filmed in 2D but then turned into 3D badly afterwards for the monetary reasons stated above.

A certain percentage of people can't see 3D, its a scientific fact..(Dunno how much but i tought it was 3 procent of the human population.) It has something to do with the colorcode used, to create the 3D effect...

I don't know about the reasoning but most of the time I either see a blurred image or the two seperate images used.

corpsesarefun wrote:I don't know about the reasoning but most of the time I either see a blurred image or the two seperate images used.

You are supposed to wear the special glasses they give you....

sillyboy wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I can't actually see 3d so I'm not the biggest fan.

Are you a cyclops? j/k. I rarely "get" the 3D effect either but that's often because it's bad 3D. Filmed in 2D but then turned into 3D badly afterwards for the monetary reasons stated above.

A certain percentage of people can't see 3D, its a scientific fact..(Dunno how much but i tought it was 3 procent of the human population.) It has something to do with the colorcode used, to create the 3D effect...

And yet the option to see a normal version isn't even given. Seems fair.

ShivanAngel wrote:My only gripe with it is that the glasses make everything *dull*... So the colors and what not arent as intense.

I agree generally. There have been two movies I really liked in 3D (neither was the monkey poo known as Avatar). How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind both took advantage of the 3D effect to enhance soaring effects, and countered the darker color by being, well bright. Rio was similar (just not as good).

I think Tangled was similar but I was distracted most of the time by a conga line of little girls dancing up and down the aisles. DEARGODNOONETOLDMEITSAMUSICALOHHHHGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDD!

But yea. I haven't seen a live action one yet worth it now that I think about it outside of an Imax specialty film.

corpsesarefun wrote:I don't know about the reasoning but most of the time I either see a blurred image or the two seperate images used.

it's a condition called stereo-blindness, if you wanna know more. I suggest googling it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

sillyboy wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I can't actually see 3d so I'm not the biggest fan.

Are you a cyclops? j/k. I rarely "get" the 3D effect either but that's often because it's bad 3D. Filmed in 2D but then turned into 3D badly afterwards for the monetary reasons stated above.

A certain percentage of people can't see 3D, its a scientific fact..(Dunno how much but i tought it was 3 procent of the human population.) It has something to do with the colorcode used, to create the 3D effect...

And yet the option to see a normal version isn't even given. Seems fair.

They don't? Here in belgium they always have the option to watch it 2D.

I hate the 3D crap. My nose does not fit into the hard plastic glasses they give you, so after about 1/2 hour of wearing the glasses they start to hurt. I go to take the glasses off and now everything is blurry, so its either pain or blurry movie. I would rather just see the damn movie without the 3D and have no pain and no blurryness.

Plus most of the time the 3D is just an afterthought throwin in so they can say "SUMMER MOVIE BLOCKBUSTER EXTRAVAGANZA in 3D!!!!"

corpsesarefun wrote:I don't know about the reasoning but most of the time I either see a blurred image or the two seperate images used.

As do I,due to some damage to my left eye,I experiance the same sort of thing when I view 3D films.
As for 3Ds resurgence in the film idustry ,I believe it's what it always was...a bit of a gimick,that unfourtunatly due to the more "visural" nature of movies now (more BoomPoWBang!! less story) doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon.

Frazzled wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:My only gripe with it is that the glasses make everything *dull*... So the colors and what not arent as intense.

I agree generally. There have been two movies I really liked in 3D (neither was the monkey poo known as Avatar). How to Train Your Dragon and Megamind both took advantage of the 3D effect to enhance soaring effects, and countered the darker color by being, well bright. Rio was similar (just not as good).

I think Tangled was similar but I was distracted most of the time by a conga line of little girls dancing up and down the aisles. DEARGODNOONETOLDMEITSAMUSICALOHHHHGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDD!

But yea. I haven't seen a live action one yet worth it now that I think about it outside of an Imax specialty film.

An animated Disney movie with singing in it? Unprecedented! Seriously, I think you should have predicted that.

The only good 3D I've seen is Beowulf.

There's a 4d theater in Seoul (seats that move with the action on the screen).

3d's ok for me but most films feel like it was thrown in as an after-thought to try and draw more people out of their living rooms. That's me most of the time because I have surround-sound, blu-ray and a giant screen TV so I'm always more comfortable at home than in the theater with some idiot playing with their cell-phone throughout the movie.

I wouldn't mind 3D if they were actually good movies and just use the technology to enhance the film rather than make it the focus of the film.

agnosto wrote:There's a 4d theater in Seoul (seats that move with the action on the screen).

3d's ok for me but most films feel like it was thrown in as an after-thought to try and draw more people out of their living rooms. That's me most of the time because I have surround-sound, blu-ray and a giant screen TV so I'm always more comfortable at home than in the theater with some idiot playing with their cell-phone throughout the movie.

I tried 4d once... I dont get motion sick, ever... Boats, cars, reading on buses etc... But dear god those moving seats and screens combined made me soooo sick.

Me and my friends went to see a movie in 3D. There were technical problems, and the film had to be stopped. I will never go and see a 3D movie again. Ever.

Cheesecat wrote:I wouldn't mind 3D if they were actually good movies and just use the technology to enhance the film rather than make it the focus of the film.

That's just it,for the most part 3D use in films hasn't been about " making good movies",and until recently the technology was simply used as a "wow it's in 3D" draw for crowds ( see Jaws 3D,Friday the 13th part lll and MetalStorm,The destruction of Jared Sinn for some great examples during the 80's).
Now,,as Frazz pointed out,in some cases 3D is a nice touch,but for the most part it's still just a " Hey! 3D!" sort of thing.

Thor - 9 euro in Dublin.. (swords/pavillion) we had our own glasses. It was ok but the fight scenes were blurry. Some scenes were more 3D than others.

Just a point of clarity here guys, there are two types of 3D films.

Firstly, we have the good ones, like Avatar that are filmed on cameras with 2 "eyes". So they give depth perception like your eyes do, but this is expensive unless the film is animated as all they have to do is add an extra layer of code.

Secondly, we have filmed that are converted into 3D in post production, they are simply cutting the actors out of the background, so it looks like a diorama. Unfortunately this makes a "normal" film overcast and an overcast film more or less unwatchable.

Grimtuff wrote:Just a point of clarity here guys, there are two types of 3D films.

Firstly, we have the good ones, like Avatar that are filmed on cameras with 2 "eyes". So they give depth perception like your eyes do, but this is expensive unless the film is animated as all they have to do is add an extra layer of code.

Secondly, we have filmed that are converted into 3D in post production, they are simply cutting the actors out of the background, so it looks like a diorama. Unfortunately this makes a "normal" film overcast and an overcast film more or less unwatchable.

+1

After the aberration that is Alice in Wonderland I always find out if the movie is "filmed in 3d"

if its just "in 3d" its crappy

For all the crticisms for avatar I found myself dodging leaves and branches involuntarily. Thats how you know 3d is doing its job

I completely agree with Grimtuff and Bakerofish. If it's made for 3d, it's good; unfortunatley most of them aren't.

Even if it's made for 3D, 3D is still just a stupid gimick to give theaters an excuse to charge more than their already over inflated prices. I'm not gonna wear 3D glasses for 2 hours same goes for foreign movies where you have to read subtitles for 2 hours. I just want a normal movie, in english, that I can just sit back and enjoy while I shovel popcorn down my throat.

Honestly though, we rarely go out to the movies anymore. Full of annoying brats and the place just seems to always smell like tinkles lately. More fun to just crank up my big plasma & 7.2 surround sound at home and be able to pause it when I gotta pee.

And I don't wanna wear 3D glasses at home either.

Necros wrote:... same goes for foreign movies where you have to read subtitles for 2 hours.

lol, there isn't a movie in our theaters that isn't subbed, even our own movies are subbed.

I don't mind subbed movies as much; House of Flying Daggers and The Warlords (to name but a few) were both subbed, but still excellent films.

The reason why 3D is only used for "Wow! 3D!" type effects is because many types of shots in films do not benefit at all from 3D, so directors have to put in those shots where something jumps out of the screen to justify the 3D effect.

It isn't a new technology. It was invented in the 1950s.

Given the failure of 3D on previous outings, there's no particular reason to suppose it will work this time, for all the reasons listed in previous posts.

Kilkrazy wrote:The reason why 3D is only used for "Wow! 3D!" type effects is because many types of shots in films do not benefit at all from 3D, so directors have to put in those shots where something jumps out of the screen to justify the 3D effect.

It isn't a new technology. It was invented in the 1950s.

Given the failure of 3D on previous outings, there's no particular reason to suppose it will work this time, for all the reasons listed in previous posts.

I agree,though 3D films are showing a lot more staying power now then in their previous go rounds.