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.