3D Movies - Your Thoughts?

SaShman

SaShman

Dark Knight
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
2,579
Age
35
Location
Australia
Gil
0
Personally I think they are a bit of a rip off for what they are. I can think of maybe 3-4 movies which I've seen in 3D that I think were worth it and even then I haven't had the experience of watching these movies in 2D so I can't say that watching them in 3D was any better than normal.

It's annoying when the cinemas only offer the 3D version. Normal movies can be as low as $7 where as the typical price for a 3D movie is about $20.

But anyway what do you think about them? Are there any particular movies which are of the 'must see in 3D type'? etc etc...
 
Ugh 3D :hmph:

I go to the cinemas to sit in comfort watching a movie, how can anyone sit in comfort with those horrible glasses on their heads?? They don't sit right and are always slipping down my face. Also 3D is like $4 more expensive so we get to pay $22 instead of $18.

I also find I get a little motion sick when watching 3D which is not nice. I recently wanted to go and see Hugo, it looks so great but every cinema around here is only showing it in 3D :rage: fuck that.
 
Toldies said:
Ugh 3D :hmph:

I go to the cinemas to sit in comfort watching a movie, how can anyone sit in comfort with those horrible glasses on their heads?? They don't sit right and are always slipping down my face. Also 3D is like $4 more expensive so we get to pay $22 instead of $18.
Click to expand...
Aye I forgot about the comfort thing. I always have to readjust them. Plus I often get the reflection of those lights in the Aisles when I have an Aisle seat. Also quite often in action scenes I can't see what is going on. :rage:

and $18!? You Should go to Palace Nova or something. :mokken:

Toldies said:
I recently wanted to go and see Hugo, it looks so great but every cinema around here is only showing it in 3D :rage: fuck that.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, Hugo is one of the few films that I really enjoyed watching in 3D.
 
:hmmm: the Palace Nova. That's that artsy cinema on Rundle Street isn't it? :hmmm:

The only problem is parking in the city is a bitch :damon: and I live pretty far from there.

Perhaps if Hugo looks great in 3D I'll give it a go, though I can't think of a single movie I enjoyed in 3D and i've seen quite a few.
 
Toldies said:
:hmmm: the Palace Nova. That's that artsy cinema on Rundle Street isn't it? :hmmm:

The only problem is parking in the city is a bitch :damon: and I live pretty far from there.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's split up so there are two buildings; one on either side of the street. But on Mondays they charge $7 before 4pm and $8 after. Parking in the city isn't too bad at night.

I think Norwood or Arnedale do $11 tickets but I can't remember which one it is or which day they do it on.
 
SaShman said:
Yeah. It's split up so there are two buildings; one on either side of the street. But on Mondays they charge $7 before 4pm and $8 after. Parking in the city isn't too bad at night.

I think Norwood or Arnedale do $11 tickets but I can't remember which one it is or which day they do it on.
Click to expand...

Norwood do cheap arse Tuesday, and yeah $11 but it doesn't count towards 3D :hmph: so you've still got to pay the $20 - $22 on those days, which is another negative for 3D!
 
I think it's really stupid and adds nothing to the movie :hmmm: Half the time you can't even tell it's in 3D and barely anything pops out at you. It's mostly just depth, but that doesn't really make a movie better looking. Not to mention that I wear glasses, so glasses on glasses is not only uncomfortable, but really annoying because seriously, why do I have to wear glasses over my glasses. Taking them off makes the movie look like shit. But I kept the glasses (I have two pairs :hmmm:) instead of putting them in that stupid recycle bin because that's what they get for making me wear them.
 
I used to keep the glasses too. But then I realised that they still charged you the same price when you brought your own so now I just chuck them in that recycle bin. I've found that the craziest 3D effects are generally at the beginning of the film and then they die down from then. The ads right before the movie starts are also pretty extreme. :wacky:

Even though I think there are several problems with 3D and it is generally a rip off, it has come a long way. I remember the days with those shitty red and blue glasses. When it looked like there was a separate picture in front of screen.
 
The coolest 3D effect I saw was when Captain America threw his shield in the trailer for it :hmph: The movie I saw after it didn't even compare to that. I saw Spy Kids 3 back when I was young with the red and blue glasses. Those effects were probably better than what I've seen now, aside from the whole movie being red, blue, and purple :hmmm:
 
I will never ever watch a film in 3D, the ticket prices are absurdly high and most of the time it just feels like an easy way to get more money out of filmgoers. Though there have been one or two smaller scale films that have made use of it (like Cave of Forgotten Dreams) so I guess I can't completely write it off.
 
That extra euro or two is just too much, I could probably buy my own island for that kind of money. Granted it'd be tiny and its inhabitants only visible under a microscope, but I would rule my bacteria populated Eden with an iron fist. They would call me a God, worship me, and sacrifice their daughter cells to me. To think, I was going to squander my money on a 3D film
 
the problem is that far too few filmmakers will do 3d properly. there are two ways to do it; film in 3d, or convert it in post-production. most of the time it's converted in post and the difference is very noticable. and even when done in post, there are a few different options to take and most of the time, they opt for the cheaper option. jackass 3 was shot in 3d and looked very good.
the other problem is that because 3d is such a novelty now, films try to fit around that. there was that scene in pirates of the caribbean 4 when jack sparrow spun around a palm tree. it was obvious that the only reason that scene was in was because it was going to be in 3d.

i think 3d is ruining the future of cinema, for several boring reasons. i've noticed that it has been dying off quite a lot over the last 12 months, and i think in another 12 it may be completely a thing of the past. but a lot of that depends on how well the hobbit does at the end of this year
 
The best 3D movie I've seen was made for 3D and was being shown in the Science Museum around 12 years ago. Every 3D movie I've seen since has disappointed me - and has furthermore left me with a bit of a headache!

I personally feel 3D is a gimmick. The 3D movies we have now do not work as well as they could and the extra money one has to pay to see a movie in 3D (even when 3D is the only option) is ridiculous. The images hover in front of the screen and the cutoff points feel unnatural and are distracting. The out of focus edges are more prominent too. :/

Even if these images were of a higher quality and surrounded the viewer so that they felt they were inside the movie... Is that what we really want from movies? Personally, I like the fact I can sit BACK when watching a movie and view the scenery, people and towns from a distance. Movies are an art form and directors/producers use certain shots and angles to help tell the story. Some of these shots just can't work in 3D, like close up shots.

Here's hoping the industry soon steer away from 3D to focus on the quality of story, script and character.
 
I don’t particularly care about 3D movies. I’ve only experienced a few movies in 3D.

Avatar was my first and it did look amazing, and Thor was another movie that I saw in 3D and Thor’s Asgard looked brilliant with this…

However the 3D of cinema is not what I’d thought it would be. The 3D is really just an enhanced and clearer image, and the figures etc do not really appear to be jumping out at you. Perhaps I’ve been spoiled in the past by riding the 3D rides in Florida as a child. The 3D in those rides really does jump out at you, very near, whereas this new cinematic 3D remains on the screen, albeit it looks like the objects within the screen have a bit more depth.

It’s not bad, but to cut costs I wouldn’t pay the extra fee for 3D unless the landscape of the movie is fantastic (as it was in Thor). That said, I’ve not seen Thor in normal vision to compare it. The scenery probably looks just as impressive without being in 3D, but it certainly felt impressive at the time during the whole cinema experience. However, as a whole, I do not like 3D very much because it doesn’t seem to do a lot to the movies.
 
I can't stand 3D movies.

The first one I watched was the last Resident Evil and it's so relaxing watching crap from the movie fly at your head the whole time :wacky:

The glasses are horrible, the extra effects are not worth the extra $3-$4 in ticket prices and when I walked out of the theater I had a HORRIBLE headache.

If I can avoid seeing them I will. It's inconvenient and I really don't think it's worth it. I don't understand why everything has to be 3D nowadays. Whatever.
 
Like pooleybbz said, there is a marked difference between films that are filmed in 3D and those that are made 3D capable afterwards. Avatar and Thor both looked awesome because they were always intended to be broadcast in 3D. I think 3D can look really great when it's not just added on, and I'd like to see it more

It seems bizarre to say that the script or plot of a film might suffer because of it, you could say the same about when they introduced colour and sound
 
Lirael said:
The images hover in front of the screen and the cutoff points feel unnatural and are distracting. The out of focus edges are more prominent too. :/
Click to expand...
i'd like to know what you mean by that exactly? 3d films are all made in high definition - they need to be for editing purposes (i think) - so there should be no out of focus areas at all, or any distracting cut off points. although i don't understand what you mean at all by a cut off point.
 
I am so sick of 3D movies. Most of the time I can't really tell the difference between 2D and 3D, and it is very annoying when the theater only offers 3D. There are only a few movies that I thought were worth the 3D. One was Hugo where I think the 3D actually enhanced the movie.
 
I've only seen 1 movie in 3D (Resident Evil) and I thought it was neat. I'd never buy a 3D movie or 3D TV, however.
 
I am on the fence when it comes to whether I do or don't like 3D, I am a person who was completely against 3D. Avatar was the first time I ever had seen a 3D movie, it was a great experience. I actually like 3D in terms of how it kind of makes the visuals more realistic like people in a crowd truly defined like they are different layers rather than a flat image. Atmospheric 3D is what I believe is ideal and the future, rather than the in your face for cheap thrills idea.

3DTV's however for me are not worth it, it to me doesn't deliver the same effect of going to the cinema and seeing it in 3D. So for me yes to 3D...only if done right and atmospheric and no to the 3DTV!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top