This 3D crap really needs to stop.

Post Reply New Topic

I have a habit of seeing every installment of legacy movies even when I'm not terribly interested in them. So tonight I saw Final Destination 5(as an aside, can they come up with a better name than "Final Destination"? It made sense for the first movie, but the other 3 have just been riding on the back of a name that means nothing to their plot.) and the opening sequence was terrible. I saw the normal version because I didn't feel like shelling out the extra $3(made that mistake on the last one). And all I see for the first 5 minutes are graphics coming toward the screen like the director was screaming "Hey look! Isn't this neat!?!?! !" The reason Avatar was so well received was because James Cameron understood moviegoers don't want "hey look!" 3D. If it's used at all it needs to further the story or at least show the world you've created better. What we need is more movies to be shot in either 4K or preferably 8K. Having films that look photo realistic on a big screen seems a more appropriate use of filmmakers time than endless stereoscopic visual diarrhea. Am I way off base here?

AFAIC, a better [more visually benign for sensitive folk] form of quasi-3d, would be if movies were made using the showscan process, where 65mm film is registered and projected at 60 frames per second- i saw it for myself down in las vegas, at the luxor hotel, they had a movie theatre there which exhibited showscan technology, and it was so hyper-real, you could see the makeup and pores and peachfuzz on the actors' faces! there was absolutely no judder, the motion was crystal-clear and super-smooth no matter how fast the action on-screen. now if they added 3d to this, it would be absolutely mind-blowing. IMAX hidef [48 frames per second] is similar but even more clear. 4k/8k digital movies would be better if they were high-frame-rate rather than the utterly ridiculous and reductive 24 frames-per-second hollywood sticks to by habit. james cameron said he was finished with 24 frames per second- good for him!
with the lcd/polarized glasses, i find regular 3d to be too dark and murky, they need to use more light when filming 3d movies, or at least move the gamma point higher.

The only reason almost all movies are 3D now is so we spend more money to watch them, to get more money out of our pocket. I read a pretty good article a couple of months ago where industry experts explained why we should not watch 3D movies, explaining our brain is not fit for that technology, which is why some people -like myself- end up having headaches after watching those movies. I just do not watch 3D movies. Period. I prefer watching them in a regular screen, at regular price. I prefer a good script over special effects, after all.

There was a movie recently going for "4D". I don't remember what movie it was. Next thing you know, it will be 5D and then infinity-D.

There are two reasons why the studios are opting for 3D even when it is totally unnecessary:

1. To undermine film piracy. A 3D movie creates an experience that cannot be replicated anywhere other than the theater (3D TVs be damned), giving people more incentive to go see a movie and not illegally download it.

2. Theaters can charge more money to see a 3D movie, ensuring more profits. The profit margins are increased if the 3D effects are just simply a conversion from 2D (the cheaper, lower quality 3D).

A lot of film buffs (including James Cameron himself) have denounced the unnecessary overuse of 3D technology, fearing that it will turn audiences off to (and eventually kill) the format. This weekend the Glee 3D Concert movie was released, and will only be in theaters for two weeks. All this movie is is a live recording of a people singing. Does a movie such as this need to be in 3D?

I haven’t even seen a movie in 3D, but with all the complaining I hear about how it ruins movies, I’m relieved whenever I hear that an upcoming movie I’m interested in will be 2D only. Even if the 3D is good, I’m not interested in spending extra for it.

I can't stand 3d movies. they are pointless and those glasses are a sensory nightmare.

^^
I agree. Shelling out $4 just for the glasses is a waste of money.


Sometimes you can see a 3D movie perfectly without the glasses.

I always opt for 2D, no matter what the movie is.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

3-D Totally Rocks!

I never cared for this 3D fad. Whenever I go see a movie, I prefer to see it in 2D.

i thought captain EO was neat. wish i coulda seen avatar in 3d but i live just too far from any major city where it was shown.

The problem with 3D movies is that they need a proper storyline, and most of the IMAX stuff 10 years ago were all documentaries, which were great. But now, they seem to "intentionally" make some movies just for the 3D format.