3d movies, whats your opinion?

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.

Ghost Train

I have to say I like 3d movies but I think it has to be the right movie for it, usually animations work best. First movie I saw was the polar express in an IMAX and it looked amazing

Janreichle

Not a big fan of 3D, always seems blurry to me

timetogo

I've seen a couple and I'm not bothered about seeing any more in 3d.
It seems to be just an excuse to grab an extra couple of quid out of the movie goer. My local has started to show some films in only 3d. For example Edge of Tomorrow was only shown in 3d and Transformers 4 was only in 3d for the first few weeks.

So for Edge of Tomorrow I went elsewhere and visited a cinema I hadn't been in years. Didn't bother with Transformers.