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.

The studios are pushing it harder partly because it is easier to do with CGI.

Doesn't mean it's popular.

I saw Avatar and Up! in 3D. I wasn't so enthused that I would ever preferentially go and see another 3D film. Avatar gave me a headache.

Kilkrazy wrote:The studios are pushing it harder partly because it is easier to do with CGI.

Doesn't mean it's popular.

I saw Avatar and Up! in 3D. I wasn't so enthused that I would ever preferentially go and see another 3D film. Avatar gave me a headache.

I think that was less the 3d and more due to being beaten over the head with "THE MESSAGE".

3d is an obnoxious gimmick that needs to die. EVERYTHING is in 3d now. It doesn't make the movie any better. If a movie is good, it's good. If it looks like gak, sounds like gak, and smells like gak it's gak even if you were to show it in 6d.

Hmm,seems I may have to retract my previous statement concerning 3D being more prevolent now then before...
After a quick scan over various list of films that were released in 3d format,it seems the 1950's are still somewhat ahead of 2000-2010,though not by much .

Bakerofish wrote:

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

Here's my Avatar story: I saw Avatar before it was cool. Y'kknow before it was the biggest movie ever, because I'm a sci-fi fan and that's just the type of movies I like. I still disliked 3D at the time still and stupidly saw it in 2D not realizing this was probably the best 3D of all time. Now God is punishing me by making watch every movie in fake 3D.

Kilkrazy wrote:The studios are pushing it harder partly because it is easier to do with CGI.

Doesn't mean it's popular.

I saw Avatar and Up! in 3D. I wasn't so enthused that I would ever preferentially go and see another 3D film. Avatar gave me a headache.

Thats not uncommon. There's something like 20% - 25% that get headaches for extended period of 3d watching (over an hour).

I just tend to not notice it after about five minutes other than with dark films. Only rarely, and again its been the animated stuff, have I suddenly been surprised (usually its flying or something in the air like the floating lamps in tangled - that was indeed cool).

You havent lived till you headbutt the guy next to you trying to dodge something you thought was flying at your from the screen!

Avatar in 3D was awesome.

Every other movie I've seen in 3D, not so much.

You can hate on Avatar all you like, it was fething fantastic!

I only hate 3D because the Fourth Ghostbusters Movie is supposed to be 3D CGI.....

3D gives me a splitting migraine. Watching all 3 hours of Avatar in 3D gave me a headache that lasted all day and blurred my vision, making it difficult to read anything.

I normally never get headaches unless I'm incredibly hung over.

Needless to say, I avoid 3D at all costs.

Ahhh! I can't stand 3D.

I gave up on 3D after Jaws 3.

Proper 3d Gaming on a kick-ass machine makes the game look amazing!

Monster Rain wrote:I gave up on 3D after Jaws 3.

Yep,remember walking out of the theater felling just a bit dead inside.

You're the only one who understands me, FITZZ.

Monster Rain wrote:You're the only one who understands me, FITZZ.

It's a gift Monster,it's a gift...

Aye, i agree entirely, I watched Avatar on IMAX and it was.. uninspiring.

I prefer normal movies..

Even HD can feth it up, have you seen a blueray of Pirates of the Caribbean!? Keira has zits and hairs on her top lip and everything!

I like good old fashioned VHS, the women look hotter when its grainy

I've still not seen a film in 3D. Can't really justify the price difference (indeed, it is difficult enough to justify the price of the regular cinema ticket).

Like many of the posters I would rather people made films using 3D as an aspect to enhance the film, not "OH WOW LOOK AT ALL THE EXTRA MONEY WE ARE GETTING!"

I find my eyes get used to the 3D very quickly and seem to then take it for granted. Only then stands out again for awhile when something dramatic happens, eg something lunges at you. I'd prefer it if they spent their time get VR sorted out. Just imagine CoD, Halo or GoW using VR

Slarg232 wrote:I only hate 3D because the Fourth Ghostbusters Movie is supposed to be 3D CGI.....

Um, there has to be a third one first. Which incidentally is out in 2012.

Well this thread has shown me what I've suspected. The masses are hardly clamoring for more 3D and some people are actually incapable of watching it. It's just so the theaters and studios can charge me an extra $3-4 bucks a show and make sure I don't record it. Even all that wouldn't be so offensive if I was given an option but where I am almost every movie with a single special FX or more must be in 3D! Argggh!
Oh well, thanks for letting me vent Dakka.

I used to hate 3d too.

My thoughts are that much like special effects, 3D does not make a film good. Pretty much all of the ones I've seen were rubbish to average films, so that didn't really help.

As far as the 3D experience goes, I find that any part of the screen in my peripheral vision is blurred, so I have to turn my head to see things properly. And as others have said, I get a mild headache after 90 mins.

I specifically sought out a 2D showing of Thor and I believe my enjoyment of that film was greatly improved as a consequence.

I lucked out and My theater had a regular version of Thor. I opted for that in a heart beat.

It's not that I don't enjoy 3d...sometimes... but I have absolutely no desire to pay $20.00 for a movie.

Grimtuff wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I only hate 3D because the Fourth Ghostbusters Movie is supposed to be 3D CGI.....

Um, there has to be a third one first. Which incidentally is out in 2012.

Maybe he is referring to the video game being a third movie? It was pretty good and felt like a 3rd movie. Heck Harold wrote the script for the game just like he did for the movies.

I think its garbage, and personally find it to be very annoying, in movies and in gaming.

My friend has some 3d stuff for his pc-gaming rig, says he can only play it for like 10-20m at a time before getting a headache. So, that's looking great for the future of 3d.

Where's my gd holodeck? THAT's the 3d I want.

Never been a fan of 3D. I also am not a fan of paying money, so I can give myself a crazy headache.

I always get headaches, plus the glasses are really uncomfortable. I've heard peple go on about how the movie becomes more immersive and so on, but how can you get into a film when you have to periodically remove your glasses and "strech" your eyes. When I watched 3D last, I couldnt paint for the rest of the day because my vision was shot. Films like the Matrix work perfectly well in 2D, simply because they are GOOD FILMS! 3D does NOT make a film worth watching.
(although Avatar was better in 3D)

There is still quite a lot not in 3D, but there are films that don't need/shouldn't be 3D coming out.

I thought Avatar was an amazing visual spectacle, i saw it in 3D at the cinema, haven't bothered watching it again because i thought the 3D added to it.
I saw Shrek 4 in 3D, and it wasn't really necessary, they just new that all the kids would want to go see it, so up the price £2-3 or however much it is for 3D (and some places charge you for glasses!!! That you can keep though..). But thats perfectly enjoyable not in 3D.

I haven't had any headache issues, apart form when i watched Shrek, but that was probably more to do with the drinking the night before.....(my 18th )
As long as film studios and Film Makers know when to use 3D, its fine, but some films really don't need to be in 3D, some films like Avatar will look very good in 3D, its all about making the right decisions. Cheaper prices would be nice as well.... Once Avatar hit $2 billion, they should have just made it free to watch (or a small cinema charge anyway) nearly $3 billion income from one film is ridiculous.