3d movies, whats your opinion?

akaMrSmith

Hi everyone,
Personally I cant stand 3d movies and I hope they stop making them. Does anyone else feel this way? Do people think they are worth the extra money to see them? What do you think about them?

pa990

3D movies are blurry and give me headaches.

maybe when 4k-3D comes along, it will be watchable, but until then , 3D cinema and BD's are a no go for me.

NIMAN

Never seen one tbh. Never had enough interest to actually get myself along to the cinema to check one out. Always meant to.

The whole fad around 3D TVs for the home seems to have died a death as well.

FunLover18

Absolute waste of money that is more likely to distract me from a movie rather that "immerse" me in one. It's not even 3D it's pop-up 2D. If the writing, acting, directing, and all the other stuff is good enough than we shouldn't need extra layers to immerse us. It's a gimmick and the sooner it goes the better.

Liam McPoyle

Gimmicky shyte that appeals to plebs IMO.

johnny_ultimate

It is an aesthetic menace to cinema, and I'd struggle to think of any film where the minor benefits outweigh the major drawbacks.

However, I am curious to see Godard's Goodbye to Language, which trustworthy sources seem to indicate is the definitive statement on three dimensions so far.

GarIT

I think they are great, I don't really watch films without it anymore. In the Guardians of the Galaxy there were any pop out effects, the whole film just had much more depth to the scenery.

Also just as an FYI all films are 3D, what people call 3D is actually 4D. Time is a dimension.

Getting water thrown at you, smelling things or your seat moving is not a dimension so those things should be called 4D.

akaMrSmith

GarIT wrote: »

I think they are great, I don't really watch films without it anymore. In the Guardians of the Galaxy there were any pop out effects, the whole film just had much more depth to the scenery.

Also just as an FYI all films are 3D, what people call 3D is actually 4D. Time is a dimension.

Getting water thrown at you, smelling things or your seat moving is not a dimension so those things should be called 4D.

I hate to burst your bubble but no films are actually 3d. You watch them on a flat screen so by definition that cannot be 3d. They are simulated 3d, you see two separate images on the screen just as your brain sees two separate images from your eyes. Your brain triangulates the distances and this gives the images depth. Unfortunately for some people, myself included, simulated 3d causes headaches. Im not going to go into the time aspect you mentioned as it is in no way relevant to 3d films.

GarIT

akaMrSmith wrote: »

I hate to burst your bubble but no films are actually 3d. You watch them on a flat screen so by definition that cannot be 3d. They are simulated 3d, you see two separate images on the screen just as your brain sees two separate images from your eyes. Your brain triangulates the distances and this gives the images depth. Unfortunately for some people, myself included, simulated 3d causes headaches. Im not going to go into the time aspect you mentioned as it is in no way relevant to 3d films.

Yes I Know they are not 3D, it is an illusion of depth rather than actual depth.

Time is relevant, a film can't take place without time passing.

akaMrSmith

GarIT wrote: »

Yes I Know they are not 3D, it is an illusion of depth rather than actual depth.

Time is relevant, a film can't take place without time passing.

Time is relevant but not to this discussion. No film is seen in one frame, not standard movies or 3d movies.

DVDM93

Not my cup if tea to be honest. Remember it appealing me to as a clueless kid, says it all about how much of a gimmick it is really. Find it harder to concentrate, half the time it's blurry and if the glasses aren't sitting right it can be a real pain, having to position your head awkwardly and what not. I wouldn't pay for 3D if it was cheaper than 2D to be honest. As mentioned, it's pop up 2-D really, like a shiny sticker toy you'd get in a cereal box, cheap and gimmicky.

Think it's something that only really appeals to kids, and I can see why they'd be entertained by it. Just not for me.

Tipsy McSwagger

Crappy gimmick that takes away you're full attention.

e_e

My main problem with 3D is that it's completely at odds with the way films are edited these days. It just isn't suited to the quick cutting of mainstrem action/animated movies and it just becomes annoying rather than immersive.

I think occasionally it is done right when a film slows down to draw your attention to something, like with Gravity, Hugo or (the best example for me) Cave of Forgotten Dreams. But even then the rare instance of something interesting being done is what, like once a year and we still have to contend with darker images, light loss and wearing the stupid glasses.

Turtwig

It's got potential. Problem is most directors and studios don't really know how to use it. Some just end up with really dark movies. Hopefully we'll get more novel uses for it.

akaMrSmith

Some day someone will invent a tv like the computer in Iron man, this will be actual 3d but until then we seem to be stuck with a cheap simulation of 3d.

Diemos

Crap, I avoid them if at all possible.
Wearing stupid glasses that darken everything.

Anyone who bought a 3D TV to watch at home is a nonce. IMHO

Right Turn Clyde

It's a gimmick. It messes with the colour and it makes the screen blurry. That's heresy as far as cinema goes. But there have been a few films that made good use of it. I really enjoyed the 3D in Hugo, Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Pina. Saying that, they're equally as good in 2D.

Right Turn Clyde

I should have mentioned Gravity as well. I seen that in IMAX and I honestly sensed a little motion sickness during the first set piece. That's never happened to me in a cinema before.

Yawns

It's great when done properly. Unfortunately it rarely is. Jurrasic Park in the 3D is very good.

agent graves

i won premier tickets to go see man off steel in the savoy.. first and last time il see a film in 3d... could make out what was happening half the time.. dark and blurry because of the glasses.. total tripe

Like any tool at a filmmakers disposal it can be used to enhance a film or take away from it. So far, most films to utilise the tech have done so poorly, it's something thrown on after the fact so to charge a premium for tickets. Watching Thor in 3D was one of the worst cinema going experiences of my life, the image was drained of colour, the 3D nonexistent and more often that not there seemed to be a filter of dirt over the screen. I ended up going to see it a second time so I could see the film as the director intended and would have opted for 2D the first time if given the option. Far too many 3D releases have been converted in post and it rarely works unless the film was shot with a conversion in mind. The only 3D moment to be found in any Marvel release is generally the end credits.

There has been a number of films which put 3D to good use. Hugo has some truly breathtaking moments and while I missed it in the cinema, the 3D on the TV at home was stunning. Films like Hugo and Avatar don't suffer from the issue of dimness because of the way they were shot. The darkening of the image which occurs when projected in 3D can be compensated for during the actual shooing by boosting the amount of light. One of the big issues with 3D in cinemas is that projectionist don't turn up the brightness of their projector bulbs. When Dark of the Moon came out there was a letter sent out with each copy asking projectionists to turn up the brightness as various post production techniques had been implemented so as to help stop the darkening to the image. In most cases the brightness wasn't altered in cinemas as the cost of a new bulb can run between 3000-5000 euro and burn out after 500 screenings and as such cinemas aren't eager to do anything that may diminish the life span of the bulbs

krudler

The films I enjoyed it during were Gravity, Jackass 3D and Life of Pi, but aside from that it's a pain in the arse.

lertsnim

I used to watch them but for the last few years I avoid it like the plague. It gives me headaches. I always felt really odd after watching a 3D film in the cinema.

2D screenings seem to have a better crowd too which is a bonus.

I have it on my TV also and I never use it.

The fact that most films have it added on post production is also another reason why I hate it.

ScrubsfanChris

I try to avoid 3D screenings in the cinema, it just doesn't work for me. Same complaints as most regarding it being too dark and spots of bluriness...

Saying that, in the last week I've watched Life of Pi and Lego Movie on my friends 50" 3D tv and they both looked fantastic. Better than any 3D I've seen in the cimema, might have something to do with the image being backlit and improved tech, in any case it was by far the best quality I've seen those movies in.

Kept saying to myself "It actually looks like real lego"

krudler

Tv 3D always looks better to me, maybe it's the small screen makes it easier to focus on what you're supposed to. Where you sit in the cinema has a lot to do with it as well. I saw Guardians and was off centre and it definitely affected the 3D effect.

brianregan09

3D is just to get more money out of ya, the fact that some cinemas refuse to show 2D offerings of some blockbusters or 1 showing per day proves that

EoghanIRL

We have a 3d tv at home and it's not blurry like at the cinema. It's more like hd 3d if there is even such a thing .

Sam Mac

If the director knows how to use it properly, like in the case of Hugo and Gravity, then I welcome it with open arms. However, as a gimmick, it can fcuk right off. Also, I never pay for 3D if going to a film in the cinema, as the cost is too expensive. 3D Blu-ray looks amazing when done right.

Meirleach

Also most '3d' movies are filmed in 2d and then converted, making them a dull blurry mess. It's also a real pity that 48fps for 3d movies didn't catch on.

thebostoncrab

It can work really well with certain films to create an amazing depth on the screen, like in Gravity or Hugo. Dredd however has used it better than any other film yet, by not only creating these incredible visuals but also kind of making it part of the story also (The slow-mo scenes)

Ri_Nollaig

Diemos wrote: »

Crap, I avoid them if at all possible.
Wearing stupid glasses that darken everything.

Anyone who bought a 3D TV to watch at home is a nonce. IMHO

Well any new TV bought in the past two year is most likely going to be 3D capable. I have it on mine and used it once to try it out, haven't tried it since

I also think 3D is a waste of time and hope this "cycle" of it will soon disappear again.

jaykhunter

I'd be absolutely fine with never seeing another 3D film. That said, I've a 3DTV and I don't watch that many blockbusters ('spectacle movies'), so I've fine with wearing two pairs of glasses once every few months, either at home or in the cinema.

There are only a few films that I thought were better in 3D than 2D, by the way it was shot, eg Dredd 3D. The Slo-mo effect looks glorious in 3D

coolisin

I ended up buying a 3dtv not because I wanted to but because the TV happened to come with 3d.
I have sat down once to watch a 3d movie, (Pacific Rim) it was far more watchable then I imagined, 3d wise, maybe because the whole image is in your vision, and the fact your watching something at the correct brightness.

I have used it a couple of times for Playstation and I can see this working as it can add to a gaming experience.

The hobbit premiere last year in the savoy I was on the far left of the screen down front.
Found it horrible way to dark, and out of focus.

Would I pay for it no! I will not go out of my way to view a film in 3d. Pity some of the blockbusters better times are the 3d viewings.
Did I want it at home nope.

Fawk Nin

Can't stand 3D. Just a marketing ploy to allow cinemas to charge even crazier prices to get people in the door. The effect isn't even impressive and it completely dulls out the colour. I saw Apes both in 2D and 3D and could barely make out what was happening some of the time in the 3D. I'll avoid it whenever possible.

Bacchus

That's a lot of hate for 3D. As a general rule of thumb, I'd avoid it but I've been impressed by it in Avatar, Tron, Rise of the Planet of the Apes & Guardians of the Galaxy. 3D when done with some restraint can be mesmerising. When it's just launching stuff at you from the screen, it takes away from the experience IMO.

SoapMcTavish

I always avoid 3D in the cinema - much too dark, but 3D at home is excellent. Limited number of movies, so it is a gimmick really but some movies are great to watch in 3D, especially animated films.

Outkast_IRE

The main issue is as James Cameron likes to point out is some studios tacking on 3d to movies with no thought or integration from the start, merely a ploy to get extra money from people.

However 3d when done correctly from the get-go with the right cinematography and director can really add to the immersion off the top of my head Avatar, Gravity, Life of Pi and some animations such as UP really used the 3d to add to the movie giving it depth and some nice effects.

If you ever get the opportunity go see gravity in 3d on the big screen with a group of people who are there to enjoy it , its an amazing immersive experience, there was sheer silence in the cinema when I watched it with 200 other people, everybody stopped eating, drinking and just sat in utter silence amazed at the beauty of the opening scenes

Frank Lee Midere

I saw gravity in 2D on an iPad and its the only movie I've seen recently which made me feel I missed something on the large screen and possibly in 3D.

The problem is darkness for me. Cinema screens are not that bright, which is why all the lights have to be off and somebody opening a door to the lobby ( if visible) automatically attracts your eyes, maybe blinds a bit.

The screen seems brighter than it is because of the surrounding near total darkness. Putting on those glasses really darkens the movie for me. I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - otherwise good - in 3D, but it clearly wasn't designed for it. There were plenty of dark areas, and rooms in the movie, by necessity. The gloom was intense with the glasses, and since they added little, I took em off.

mewso

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I saw gravity in 2D on an iPad and its the only movie I've seen recently which made me feel I missed something on the large screen and possibly in 3D.

Gravity is the only film I have seen in 3D and while I could appreciate that it was done well I honestly think I would have enjoyed it just as much in 2D. It was a spectacle. What you missed out on here is seeing it on a big screen no matter what D it was in. I have zero interest in 3D but it's not going away any time soon unfortunately unlike the previous time around when it died a death. Any chance of a re-release of Krull I wonder.

Diemos

krudler wrote: »

The films I enjoyed it during were Gravity, Jackass 3D and Life of Pi, but aside from that it's a pain in the arse.

Jackass 3D was the best use of 3D I have seen, only movie that looked better, I missed Gravity and Life of Pi on the big screen.

MJ23

It's a fad that will hopefully fizzle out soon.
Another thing on movies, people going on about 3D, Bluray, 4K etc. If the film is shyte, it'll still be shyte no matter how good the picture is.

johnny_ultimate

MJ23 wrote: »

It's a fad that will hopefully fizzle out soon.
Another thing on movies, people going on about 3D, Bluray, 4K etc. If the film is shyte, it'll still be shyte no matter how good the picture is.

3D is not in the same category as BluRay or 4K - they are digital technologies that give us films old and new at the best available viewing quality. Why would you want to watch a film at an inferior quality?

Bacchus

MJ23 wrote: »

It's a fad that will hopefully fizzle out soon.
Another thing on movies, people going on about 3D, Bluray, 4K etc. If the film is shyte, it'll still be shyte no matter how good the picture is.

Good point, I don't know why they made the move to colour way back when. It set a dangerous precedent and now look where we are! If it's not good on an old black and white vacuum tube TV it'll never be good.

Loughc

3d is used in two very different ways these days. It's either used to add more detail or dept to a movie ala Avatar and Gravity or it's used in the lazy way of wow look at this explosion throwing debris at your face.

I can't stand the latter it's lazy filmmaking and it's sadly the majority of the time the 3d is utilitized.

Skatedude

I have a good 3d screen and 3d films just look so fake, they all have that 2d pop up effect. However, that really applies to live action films.
Animated films like the pixer ones are much better because they arnt real. same with 3d gaming, but that only really works well with a proper 3d setup such as nvidia 3d vision with 120hz.

Telecaster58

I used to belong to a Film Society when at college and they had various seasons of films ranging from old Warner Bros. black & white gangster films, through French noir films, sci-fi oldies etc. One time they did a season of the old cheesy 3D films like It came from Outer Space, and The creature from the black lagoon. These films were low budget but were fun in that you wore the red and green shaded paper specs and invariably the film would have a character firing a harpoon or ray gun directly at the audience for effect. This gimmick soon wore thin.
Fast forward to IMAX which used to show worthy, but boring, documentaries. The only decent one I recall also showed at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida and was quite impressive.
Then along came James Cameron. I must admit I was intrigued by the prospect but, on the whole, I found the whole experience of Avatar strangely unfulfilling. This was not helped by the film being narratively weak and quite boring. It has certainly not warranted a second viewing.
This was followed by a lot of hype when Scorcese made Hugo. I think a lot of critics cut him a lot of slack because of who he was. I remember Mark Kermode, who hates 3D, making excuses along the lines of "the film was immersive" and because of its theme about film history, it was an acceptable plot device. Another yawn fest from what I could see.
Since then I have seen Ang Lee's Life of Pi which was the first film where the 3D was not intrusive and, if anything, added to the whole enjoyment of the film. I have since watched it again in 3D and it remains a delight.
After that there have been numerous films in 3D, the worst being those that are retro-fitted, but they all seem totally unnecessary in 3D. The sole exception was the wonderful Gravity. This is one film that must be seen in 3D. I have yet to see the 2D version but I think it must lose something in the showing.
It has now got to the stage where I will not watch a 3D version of any new film coming out. They add little, and if anything detract from the enjoyment of the film. I seek out the 2D version which is always cheaper, a good a reason as any to ignore 3D.

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

3D is not in the same category as BluRay or 4K - they are digital technologies that give us films old and new at the best available viewing quality. Why would you want to watch a film at an inferior quality?

Ha, funny you should say 'inferior', and it's not quite the topic of discussion, but I've sometimes found with the occasional Blu-ray remaster of old TV shows, their slim budgets and deficiencies of production become highlighted by the pristine digital picture. What was once obscured by lo-fi, analogue projection became quite obvious and in some cases lessened the experience for me; to the point I kinda preferred my old VHS tapes or shoddy DVD transfer.

bnt

Only seen one, while visiting a friend in Cardiff. His choice: Saw 3D. Probably not the best film to show off the medium's potential: seeing people die in horrendous ways is bad enough in 2D, and the story was, well, 1D.

3D just strikes me as totally unnecessary, and driven more by the media conglomerates' wish to re-sell people the same films they already have. Given all the amazing movies we have from the last century plus, what's 3D going to add to that?

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

beauf

Telecaster58 wrote: »

I used to belong to a Film Society when at college and they had various seasons of films ranging from old Warner Bros. black & white gangster films, through French noir films, sci-fi oldies etc. One time they did a season of the old cheesy 3D films like It came from Outer Space, and The creature from the black lagoon. These films were low budget but were fun in that you wore the red and green shaded paper specs and invariably the film would have a character firing a harpoon or ray gun directly at the audience for effect. This gimmick soon wore thin.
Fast forward to IMAX which used to show worthy, but boring, documentaries. The only decent one I recall also showed at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida and was quite impressive.
Then along came James Cameron. I must admit I was intrigued by the prospect but, on the whole, I found the whole experience of Avatar strangely unfulfilling. This was not helped by the film being narratively weak and quite boring. It has certainly not warranted a second viewing.
This was followed by a lot of hype when Scorcese made Hugo. I think a lot of critics cut him a lot of slack because of who he was. I remember Mark Kermode, who hates 3D, making excuses along the lines of "the film was immersive" and because of its theme about film history, it was an acceptable plot device. Another yawn fest from what I could see.
Since then I have seen Ang Lee's Life of Pi which was the first film where the 3D was not intrusive and, if anything, added to the whole enjoyment of the film. I have since watched it again in 3D and it remains a delight.
After that there have been numerous films in 3D, the worst being those that are retro-fitted, but they all seem totally unnecessary in 3D. The sole exception was the wonderful Gravity. This is one film that must be seen in 3D. I have yet to see the 2D version but I think it must lose something in the showing.
It has now got to the stage where I will not watch a 3D version of any new film coming out. They add little, and if anything detract from the enjoyment of the film. I seek out the 2D version which is always cheaper, a good a reason as any to ignore 3D.

I've seen that IMAX space station in Kennedy and was impressed at the time. But it was a long time ago. I see its available now for consumer 3D I would like to check it out and see it again.

I actually like Avatar, but then I like Sc-Fi and fantasy stuff. I watched Gravity and thought it was quite a dull movie. I've seen neither of them in 3D. My point is each to their own.

I watched one of the last Harry Potter movies in 3D and I thought the 3D added very little. Depth of field and focus seemed to be an issue and the whole thing was so dark. One I really enjoyed was the Ice Age 3, the dinosaur one. We have Turtles tale in 3D and we enjoyed that. Watched Jurassic park in 3D and accepting the compromises it was enjoyable in the 3D conversion.

I find watching 3D slightly fatiguing on the eyes. But I'm interesting in 3D and will check out a few more. But I'm happy enough watching a B&W old movie. So 3D isn't something at this point I feel ads enough to be worthwhile for a lot of stuff. The kids though get a kick out of it, and I think the CGI/Animated stuff is fun in 3D.

Getting harder to get stuff. Its expensive, and not many places carry it. But I'll keep an eye out for bargains and pick up more 3D at the right price. I'm quite happy to re-watch movies. So I don't mind watching it 2D then checking it out in 3D at another sitting.

endacl

In my experience, generally, 3D movie = 2D script. All fur coat and no knickers.