Hate 3D? I will change your mind

[Six]

Only a very few movies are good in 3D....Beowolf, Avatar, Up, Tron, and Prometheus. All the others are scams, especially that 2D converted to 3 layers crap. A thing floating in front, a couple things in the middle, and a wallpaper background is not 3D.

I don't bother with 3D unless it's shot with two cameras.

 

[JimKiler]

Shaky cam may bother some people, but I think it helps for certain movies where there is a frenetic pace to the movie (like Bourne) or where it is a first person/cameraman/
documentary perspective.

It shouldn't be used for every movie, but that's the nature of most filmmaking techniques. It's the same for deliberate use of black and white - it may work It's for a movie like The Artist, but I wouldn't want to see The Dark Knight Rises in black and white.

Shaky cam is a great technique but Paul Greengrass and other to a lessor degree have to learn that while sugar is good it cannot be only thing I eat.

 

[Lummex]

The only movies I've seen where I appreciated that they were 3D were Avatar, and the most recent Christmas Carol (with Jim Carey as Scrooge). In Christmas Carol I'd argue that it was actually necessary, as it was one of the most artistically beautiful movies I've ever seen and the 3D added to that immensely. Sort of the same with Avatar as well.

Other than that 3D seems to be a waste and most of the time it doesn't add anything substantial to the movie.

 

[JimKiler]

Bourne Ultimatum was a damn good movie, and your example is to disparage that... you're not winning points with me. Though I would be happy to throw out shaky cam.

Tell me this when Jason Bourne fights Jarda in the house during The Bourne Supremacy can you tell which character is which? as soon as they are "wrestling" each other you have no clue who is who because of the shaky cam + quick cut edits.

 

[JimKiler]

The only movies I've seen where I appreciated that they were 3D were Avatar, and the most recent Christmas Carol (with Jim Carey as Scrooge). In Christmas Carol I'd argue that it was actually necessary, as it was one of the most artistically beautiful movies I've ever seen and the 3D added to that immensely. Sort of the same with Avatar as well.

Other than that 3D seems to be a waste and most of the time it doesn't add anything substantial to the movie.

I am not advocating 3D, i am saying the requirements for 3D make hollywood's movies better including those of us who prefer 2D.

 

[Dirigible]

Avatar is often held up as the pinnacle of current 3D.

The 3D in that movie was distracting, kept jolting me into remembering I was watching a movie with a gimmick so I couldn't lose myself in the movie, and the glasses were uncomfortable.

In conclusion, even the best current 3D sucks and is worse than 2D. Hope this fad dies quickly.

 

[Childs]

So we prevent one problem by adopting another? You're an idiot.

In the case of shaky cam, thats a win. You dont have to watch 3D, but you have to watch the shaky cam.

I would personally like to see image stabilization built into blu ray players. We already have 120/240hz in TVs, and this would simply be an extension of that.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

It's true. How many people have more than two eyes? Basically no one, right? How many people have one working eye or are blind? Quite a few. Not the majority of the population by a long shot, but still a statistically significant amount. So if you have most people with two eyes, a few people with one eye, a few people with no eyes, and no one with more than two eyes, the average number of eyes per person will be near, but less than, two.

Ha!

http://www.phreeque.com/bill_durks.html

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Ha!

http://www.phreeque.com/bill_durks.html

:hmm:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Ha!

http://www.phreeque.com/bill_durks.html

The "Man with Three Eyes", using stage makeup to paint a third eye between the bridges of his two noses. Photographs show that Bill's third eye was an obvious fake, but he seems to have fooled a generation of carnival-goers and was a huge success...

 

[Proprioceptive]

Hey butthead, i can support my argument, but i see your "adopting another" to be well thought out point backed by reason and impenetrable to any argument i make. You win!

Well, I'm glad you've come to your senses.

 

[Red Storm]

The way I see it:

$x for normal 2D, or twice as much for lame 3D?

 

[Phokus]

3D film is a fad, because the average number of eyes per person is less then 2.

If only i had more room in my sig for your quote.

 

[imagoon]

Some of the best 3D I have seen was the Avatar ending credits flying across the screen. However at that point I had such a headache it was hard to appreciate. Even in Avatar there is enough 3D defects that my head starts to hurt. Major example when they are floating in the ship after arriving at Pandora and the guy in the far background was floating out of the stasis bed behind the scene, no matter how I tried to view that scene there is 2 of him in 3D.

Ignoring Avatar, the need for so many directors to do the "throw stuff at the audience" is annoying to me because it always "tears in 2" when it comes at me.

Shaky Cam is the same, used well it is a good technique (and doesn't bother me.) 3D just gets hard to watch for me due to headaches.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Have you tried IMAX 3D glasses? I don't care much for the RealD ones as they don't fit well over my glasses. They work, but just aren't that comfortable. The IMAX 3D ones were pretty good though as they're larger to cover more peripheral vision since the screen is larger.

My 3D glasses at home are also far better than the crummy RealD ones. I use a pair of Optima active shutter DLP Link glasses for my TV and the nVision 3D 2 glasses with my PC. Both are larger and more accommodating to corrective lens wearers.

Haven't tried the Imax ones. I've tried on Sony and Panasonic sets in Frys/Best Buy and they're still uncomfortable in conjunction with my normal glasses. Yet another reason to get the LASIK.

 

[Aikouka]

Yet another reason to get the LASIK.

I know what you mean there. The thought of being able to see in the shower/pool and not having to wipe your glasses off after walking through the rain... the convenience alone is stupendous!

Too bad the only negative about my current job is that it lacks vision coverage, but it pays for all of my health insurance benefits. So, I could technically take what I was paying at my previous job for health insurance and squirrel it away. I don't think most vision plans fully cover corrective eye surgery anyway. If they do, I'm pretty sure they aren't the ones that only cost a couple dollars a paycheck.

 

[JimKiler]

The way I see it:

$x for normal 2D, or twice as much for lame 3D?

Apparently I should have been more obvious in my original post. My argument is not for seeing 3D movies, but that the techniques needed for 3D makes movies better. In other words: even if you hate 3D that is fine but you will enjoy 2D movies better that are filmed for 3D.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Apparently I should have been more obvious in my original post. My argument is not for seeing 3D movies, but that the techniques needed for 3D makes movies better. In other words: even if you hate 3D that is fine but you will enjoy 2D movies better that are filmed for 3D.

*hiss*

 

[djnsmith7]

No way you or anyone else could change my mind about 3D. No interest whatsoever.

 

[Triumph]

Even if you never watch 3D it is a benefiting us viewers. How can that be? Well when you watch a movie filmed for 3D they do not change angles nearly as often during action scenes and avoid shaky cam. Although i am sure they could use shaky cam with 3D i imagine a lot of nausea in the audience. Could you imagine the last two Bourne films in 3D? it would never work when in action scenes they cut the angle so much you cannot tell who is who. Think of the fight with Jason Bourne and Jarda in The Bourne Supremacy.

What i am trying to say is that 3D does not work when you cut to different angles quickly. Therefore it is making hollywood show restraint and making movies better. Movies like Domino, Transformers 2, and The Bourne Supremacy or Ultimatum would never work in 3D because of all the quick cuts or shaky cam or both. Even if you do not watch a movie in 3D you will benefit.

I agree with you and you make a good point, as long as I can still watch the movie WITHOUT 3D.

 

[Kaido]

In other words: even if you hate 3D that is fine but you will enjoy 2D movies better that are filmed for 3D.

I loved Avatar in 3D - saw it twice - but in 2D on Bluray, it's so boring I fell asleep.

 

[Kaido]

I agree with you and you make a good point, as long as I can still watch the movie WITHOUT 3D.

I'm very interested to see the new 48 FPS "Hobbit" movie, partially because I am not sold on 3D at home yet. I already wear glasses; I don't want to pay $99 for the privileged of wearing another pair on top.

I like 3D - sometimes - for certain movies. When it's filmed in 3D and not turned into a popup-book in post-production, it's usually pretty decent. My biggest problem with it is that I forget I'm watching 3D about 5 minutes into the movie...it's not really a big value-added feature for me. I like watching a 3D movie now and then if it's done well, like Avatar, but other than that...meh. I'll wait to see how the Hobbit turns out and find out if it's really going to be a game-changer.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I think 3D is cool but I don't find myself using it due to lack of content (on Cable and Movies).

I won't buy a 20-25 movies and none of my channels are 3d. My glasses have been collecting dust for past 6+ months.

I do have 1 or 2 3d Movies...problem is, I hardly EVER rewatch movies I already seen.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Has anyone noticed the stupid shots in 3D? They are constantly flying through stuff, or things coming through the screen at you, or awkward angles so you get more 3D effect. When you watch the movie in 2D you find yourself asking why the angles are off on some shots or why they took such pains for an angle. One example right now is the trailer for Despicable Me 2. This is the one with the little dude blowing the party favor out into the audience. It looks terrible on a normal screen. The bottom part of the screen is black and it just looks weird. I'm sure in 3D it is "awesome" but it just looks retarded otherwise.

 

[dmoney1980]

Last 3D movie I saw was Avengers. It was well done - not "over the top" 3D like Transformers and i thought that the 3D effect added to the movie experience. Having said that, I don't think 3D will last and I'd rather have at home 4k displays or 48 fps films but that's just my opinion.