Thoughts on 3D Movies!

Thought I bring up the popularity of 3D movies.

To me, 3D is good for a movie if it has the right story and characters to go with it. One great example for me would be Disney's A Christmas Carol. Director Robert Zemeckis made 3D right with his movie, and the way motion capture help bring the story to life along with Jim Carrey's fantastic performance as Scrooge.

While I think 3D in theaters is a good idea, I'm not sure if having a 3DTV in your home is going to catch on. For one thing, the prices for those 3DTVs (along with 3D Blu-Ray players) are astronomically too high. It's best to wait a couple of years before pricing becomes reasonable.

Lastly, I have to admit that I can't tell the difference between if a movie was filmed in 3D or done in post. To me, 3D is 3D when it's done well.

Personally I vomit whenever 3D is mentioned. Even when it's filmed with 3D cameras and everything the novelty and experience of it wears of after about 10 minutes.

I hate, hate, hate everything 3D. I have yet to see a 3D movie that has been worthwhile. I don't care about immersion, nor do I care about things flying at you from the screen. I've given it several chances, and all it does is give me a headache, and force me watch a film with a dimmer picture than what was intended.

I actually can't watch anything in 3D. I get terrible migraines from the glasses and trying to watch them without doesn't help my headaches, either.

I've only seen one good 3D movie and that's Jackass 3D, it's the most logical use of 3D in a movie ever. The Jackass series has always been 'throwing shit at the screen' and that's what 3D is best at so the two is a match made in heaven, dirty dirty heaven.

So my opinion on 3D? If it makes sense for it to be 3D and looks good then do it, but not every goddamn film needs to be in it. Otherwise it just feels like a cheap cash-in which it generally is.

Oddly enough, probably the best 3-D movie I've ever seen was It Came From Outer-Space. I say this, because despite the fact that it was in the blue-and-red anaglyph glasses, it probably had the most convincing 3-D effects I've ever seen in a movie.

Seriously Real-D, what the Hell, man?

To me, a lot of the 3D is crap. And a way for the companies to make money. Don't even get me started on the DBOX seating bullshit.

The Dude wrote:

Oddly enough, probably the best 3-D movie I've ever seen was It Came From Outer-Space. I say this, because despite the fact that it was in the blue-and-red anaglyph glasses, it probably had the most convincing 3-D effects I've ever seen in a movie.

Seriously Real-D, what the Hell, man?

My biggest gripe with the new 3D/Real D glasses is, for some reason, I can't see out of them that well so the movie just looks dark. When I went to see My bloody Valentine 3D I had no idea what was going on unless the scene was a day shot. And as an aside, those glasses just give hipsters an excuse to wear glasses. Grr.

bloodypitofhorror wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Oddly enough, probably the best 3-D movie I've ever seen was It Came From Outer-Space. I say this, because despite the fact that it was in the blue-and-red anaglyph glasses, it probably had the most convincing 3-D effects I've ever seen in a movie.

Seriously Real-D, what the Hell, man?

My biggest gripe with the new 3D/Real D glasses is, for some reason, I can't see out of them that well so the movie just looks dark. When I went to see My bloody Valentine 3D I had no idea what was going on unless the scene was a day shot. And as an aside, those glasses just give hipsters an excuse to wear glasses. Grr.

Ergh, don't get me started on fucking hipsters. lol

Cactus_Matt wrote:

Ergh, don't get me started on fucking hipsters. lol

Indeed, there's enough hipster hate on the internet to fill several forums, let alone this one.

my big problem with 3D is when they convert after the fact.
it makes the film so dark you cant see anything

the only films that i really think look good are animated movies like toy story 3

and yeah, the glasses are a pain, especially since i have to wear actual glasses and the 3D ones don't quite fit over top.

I tend to like the 3D concept better when they use it to simply expand on something rather than just being all "Oh my god 3D!" about it.

The stuff where random objects fly out at you never really appealed to me. It just seemed very hacky and unnecessary. Usually because the filmmaker would spend more time trying to think of random stuff to throw at you than he would attempting to come up with a workable plot.

I think some of the Real3D movies they've done lately (Meet The Robinsons, Up, etc) and Avatar did it best. It wasn't about things jumping out at you. It was more about adding depth. In these situations you have a choice. Either you can watch the film with the additional depth or you can watch it normally. You roughly get the same experience that way.

Where as if you try to watch Jaws 3D on DVD without the 3D effect you sort of just feel like punching yourself in the balls would have been a more entertaining route for the evening.

My honest oppinion: Its frivilous and unneccissary. it seems odd that the movie industry would be trying to jack up movie prices during this economy, when so many people have only so much disposable income. Some movies can do it, but they have to be really cheesey, like the old cheesy 3D movies. and even then, few and far between, otherwise the novelty wears off fast. how 3D has lasted this long kind of saddens me, as it seems too many people are still entralled by something I got bored with a week into the craze. And I feel bad for anyone foolish enough to spen the thousands of dollard for a full 3D TV and 3D entertainment system (blu-ray player, glasses, and such), as they blew a lot of money on a passing fad that will be irrelevent soon enough.

3D just does not work to me, and having to pay 70% extra on my ticket for something that doesn't work is insulting. Would be fine if cinemas would actually show the 2D version as well. But no, we've gotten to the point where very trailer says: "2D in selected cinemas".

I don't know if it's just the glasses, I'm getting a 3DS in March so who knows, perhaps that will work better for me.

The only movie I've seen in 3D was Tron Legacy and I thought it looked great. I won't rush out to see another 3D movie again soon, but if there is a movie I'm looking forward to that is in 3D I'd probably be interested in that. For instance, I can't wait to see the Star Wars movies in 3D. It will be nice seeing all those movies in the theater again.

I do think that Piranha 3-D was a lot of fun.

JustinDP wrote:

I think some of the Real3D movies they've done lately (Meet The Robinsons, Up, etc) and Avatar did it best. It wasn't about things jumping out at you. It was more about adding depth. In these situations you have a choice. Either you can watch the film with the additional depth or you can watch it normally. You roughly get the same experience that way.

That's my main problem with it. You're paying an extra 3 or 4 bucks for roughly the same experience.

I'm with Brad on this one where the movie has to be really gimmicky with it for the 3D to be effective. I don't even notice the "atmospheric 3D".

3D works for me... as a bonus, rather than a selling point.

My first 3D experiance was Beowulf. It was a lot of fun, The 3D really amplified the movie for me. My favorite scene was the one early on in the movie, where some random soldier pointed a spear at him. I involuntarily shouted "Holy shit!", because the spear came out of the screen and hovered a few centimeters from your face. Centimeters. That was friggin' awesome.

But here's another experience to compare it with. I went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D. Did not work at all... When there was movement, it was too fast for my eyes to register. So it was like paying an extra five bucks for blurry images. Not worth it.

I also went to see How to train your dragon in 3D. Like Beowulf, it worked to great effect. So my conclusion is not to bother for Live Action, but go for it when you intend to watch CG animation.

Slait wrote:

I also went to see How to train your dragon in 3D. Like Beowulf, it worked to great effect. So my conclusion is not to bother for Live Action, but go for it when you intend to watch CG animation.

But about 90% of Alice in Wonderland was CG.

The Dude wrote:

Slait wrote:

I also went to see How to train your dragon in 3D. Like Beowulf, it worked to great effect. So my conclusion is not to bother for Live Action, but go for it when you intend to watch CG animation.

But about 90% of Alice in Wonderland was CG.

True. Lemme rephrase. 3D goes well with FULL CG. It's never quite done itself justice in my eyes when I'm watching something with Live Action actors.

Then again, I've not seen Tron and I hear that movie is very visual. So who knows, this whole opinion of mine could be turned around one of these days.

Slait wrote:

The Dude wrote:

Slait wrote:

I also went to see How to train your dragon in 3D. Like Beowulf, it worked to great effect. So my conclusion is not to bother for Live Action, but go for it when you intend to watch CG animation.

But about 90% of Alice in Wonderland was CG.

True. Lemme rephrase. 3D goes well with FULL CG. It's never quite done itself justice in my eyes when I'm watching something with Live Action actors.

Then again, I've not seen Tron and I hear that movie is very visual. So who knows, this whole opinion of mine could be turned around one of these days.

I thought Tron was quite good in 3-D. There a couple of scenes where the 3-D really seems to expand the scope of the environments they're in, making them look much more impressive.

Relauby wrote:

JustinDP wrote:

I think some of the Real3D movies they've done lately (Meet The Robinsons, Up, etc) and Avatar did it best. It wasn't about things jumping out at you. It was more about adding depth. In these situations you have a choice. Either you can watch the film with the additional depth or you can watch it normally. You roughly get the same experience that way.

That's my main problem with it. You're paying an extra 3 or 4 bucks for roughly the same experience.

I'm with Brad on this one where the movie has to be really gimmicky with it for the 3D to be effective. I don't even notice the "atmospheric 3D".

Well yeah. I mostly mean when they also offer the 2D version without the extra price. If you like the 3D effects you can throw down a few extra bucks. If you don't really like it, or need it? You can opt to tell it to go screw. I like having the option though.

I honestly have no problem with 3D movies, as long as they were made in 3D originally. I'm sick of all this movies being converted in post production just to jump on the 3D Band Wagon. Case in point the Green Hornet movie, wasn't originally suppose to be 3D, but was converted in post production.

That and it's irritating that I can't watch 3D without my glasses on so I have to wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses which makes me look like a total dweeb.

Hate them all. They don't work for me and they cost more.

Last time I seen a 3D movie was years ago. They might be better now but I still remember the migraines that they use to bring, haven't had the courage to give them a try again.