3D movies, just a novelty to sell tickets?

Post Reply New Topic

Today I saw Prometheus in 3D. It was the first 3D movie I have seen since the early 1980's.
This thread is not about Prometheus, but about 3D movies in general.

Personally, I don't think that 3D really adds all that much to the movie going experience. It feels more like a novelty to me, and to some degree an annoyance. Early in the movie, I felt my eyes constantly straining a bit with every scene change, and by the end, once my eyes got used to the 3D. I pretty much forgot the movies was even in 3D.

3D in movies is really only obvious on things with a greater difference in depth. More subtle things like the contours of a face are barely noticeable.

Also, I wear prescription glasses, so maybe that somewhat detracts from the experience. I really found the 3D to be a distraction from the actual movie, paying more attention to the noticeable depth effects rather than becoming immersed in the story and action of the movie.

I doubt I will be going to many more 3D movies in the future.

So, how do the rest of you feel about 3D?

the last 3D flick i saw was cap't. EO in 1992, at disney. it was a total multimedia experience, though- it has kinetic actuators in the theatre which literally shook the theatre with the explosions/space ship crash, and there was a blast of steam coming from the front of the theatre as well. very vivid. if hollywood wants more asses in seats they gotta take a page from the disney playbook and make movies not just in 3D but also with smellovision and all the rest. one thing that would improve the experience even more, would be that if only they could boost the gamma level, 'cause the glasses' polarization dims the screen by up to 30%. and the person who invents the full-motion full-color wide-angle large holographic display will have hollywood beat a path to their door.

It's a novelty, yeah. One that I can't enjoy because I have better vision in one eye than the other, and I can't wear my glasses and 3-D glasses because it's uncomfortable. You can get prescription 3-D glasses, but I don't care that much.

I would like to say though, that it isn't just a novelty, it's an anti-pirating measure. You can directly record 3-D, so.

Except for James Cameron films like avatar or sanctom where they really use 3d to awesome effect

The 3D effect wasn't that noticeable during a lot of "Titanic 3D" which is a James Cameron movie of course. A 3D remake of an old movie doesn't look as good as one originally made that way though like "The Avengers" for example. That movie makes good use of the 3D effect for the most part.

Most "3d" films on current release have been shot single camera (2d) and then converted to stereo images (giving a 3d effect). Even films which have been planned as 3d releases are done this way.

The projection technology used in most cinemas is a bit of a retrofit (the digital projectors were not initially designed for 3d playback) with add on equipment to separate between the different eyes (alternating between them in most cases).

Captain EO was designed and shot as a 3d film, shown using dual projector large format projection equipment designed to get enough brightness on the screen, this is a far cry from the current 3d installations.

It dims the image far more than 50% in most situations. Most of the systems alternate between eyes (2 or 3 times per frame) so each eye is only shown for less than half the time. Add to this the inefficiencies of the polarising filters (also taking half the light) and it gets dim.

To get a brighter image a far more powerful lamp would be needed which would create problems when showing 2d. A second projector would be the answer, but would be too expensive for most situations.

If the image gets too bright the some of the 3d systems are not able to separate the eyes enough and ghosting (seeing both images through the same eye) would become too annoying. The official standard for 2d projection is 14 foot lamberts of brightness, for 3d this is reduced to 4 foot lamberts.

everybody now will charge you for any little extra - no matter how pathetic. it doesnt cost anymore to show a 3d film so why charge more? its all a con like most things.

What I hate about 3-D movies is that it makes the background so blurry you can't even see it most of the time. I find that I enjoy the visuals of a movie a lot more in 2-D which means the whole purpose of 3-D is not working, at least for me.

The Avengers was shot regular and enhanced to 3D in post production. Prometheus was shot in 3D.

The Avengers was my first experience with the new fad of 3D movies. Like the OP I have vission issues and it wasn't that enjoyable for me. I ended up going back to watch the "normal" Avengers but, I feel somewhat cheated because my experience was ruined by my first veiwing. However the great points of Avengers was some of the amazing dialoge so it isn't a total loss.

When I went to see Prometheus last night I made sure to see the non-3D version. I plan to go see the 3D version at a later date just to see if shot in 3D is better then post production 3D but, I'm going to wait until next week to do this.

I read somewhere that people perceive 3D movies differently, some feel they have to dodge stuff coming at them, while others barely see any difference from 2D.

Well, 3D can be awesome if the film is made with it in mind, instead of just remastered. I remember that watching the Deathly Hallows on IMAX 3D really added to the experience, and despicable me was a fun experience as well.

I agree. I don't hold with 3D-bashing at all, I'm sure that in the 1930s sound and color were also considered a "novelty". (I also remember thinking, back in 1980, that rap music wouldn't last more than a few months at most!)

Here in Switzerland, tickets for 3D showings cost exactly the same as 2D. There are competing technologies, but I've stuck with RealD which I find really agreeable and immersive.

The problem with the loss of brightness remains, though. I thought "TRON: Legacy" was far too dark to enjoy, and the opening scenes of "John Carter" (in the Old West) verged on being murky. Even though this movie was shot in 2D, the 3D on Mars (much of which was of course CGI) was very realistic and added immensely to the feeling of being on another planet. I also enjoyed the 3D in "Shrek Forever After", "Despicable Me" and "The Lion King" a lot and consider myself lucky that this technology came along while I'm still able to enjoy it - so far I only need glasses to read.

(Incidentally, I've also been a lifelong fan of the View-Master, holograms and pop-up books.)

Those Disney ones were great. Things came right out of the screen and looked like they were right in front of you.

The only recent 3d movie I saw was Saw 3d and I wasn't impressed.

I looked at a 3d tv in the store and I was even more unimpressed. Maybe they just had it poorly set up but I didn't even see the 3d. It just looked blurry to me.

Did you put the glasses on?

Yes.

RealD is the worst system in terms of eye separation (restricting the brightness). It also requires a silver screen which is not good for 2D content.