3-D movies or "How Hollywood figured out to suck more money out of moviegoers" (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Worth:
I agree about IMAX and find it to be much more immersive and - ironically - more three dimensional than 3D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent M

Another vote here for IMAX over 3-D.

IMAX specializes in 3-D.

In fact, IMAX has produced about 50 state-of-the-art 3-D films.

They are screened in IMAX theaters all over the world all the time.

Their reputation for stereoscopic cinema is impeccable and much-admired by professional cinematographers.


Their 3-D conversions of studio-produced flat films is something else again.

Converting flat to 3-D is problematic by its nature, because 3-D has to be composed and lensed differently.

 

[richellemc]

The look and outcome of new 3-D, IMAX movies is amazing. It has even made me appreciate more the beauty and greatness of any 3d, IMAX movie. However, it has taken me a lot of money from my account. SeE? Everytime I watch these movies on the big screen, I have to bring with me the whole family. But its all worth it, though.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I have to admit that I'm getting more than a little tired of seeing and hearing 3D everywhere I go, not including the actual world I live in of course lol.


Everywhere it's "3D this, 3D that..." hell I even saw a freakin' toothpaste commercial the other day called '3D Whitening'...it's enough.


I for one don't want all of my media all the time to be 3D and I really do hope it goes away or at least dies down a little soon.


I'm also more than a little bothered when I see a trailer for a new movie and at the end of it it actually makes it a point to say "Also in 2D", the fact they even have to say that tells me that something isn't right.


3D should be a perk, not a way of life.

 

[Hanson]

Looks like this fad is already petering out: http://www.slate.com/id/2264927/pagenum/all/#p2

 

[Richard--W]

The logic at the end of that article seems fatally flawed to me.

Stereoscopic films are financially successful, period.

The problem is both a shortage of product and a quantity of product that is all the same. Not everyone wants to see 3-D cartoons and 3-D horror films all the time.

Audiences want to see action and drama and comedy in 3-D.

Adults want to see grown-up 3-D films, and I'm not referring to porn.
 

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

3D should be a perk, not a way of life.

3-D is a way of life because you have a left eye and a right eye.

Therefore, 3-D movies should be a way of life, never a perk.

 

People who hate 3-D that much should just pluck out one eye. Then movies, like life, would be flat for them whether it's three-dimensional or not.

 

[Malcolm R]

 

As one theater-chain executive told Frankel, "the truth is probably that not everything should be in 3-D."

 

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

 

Originally Posted by Richard--W

The logic at the end of that article seems fatally flawed to me.

Stereoscopic films are financially successful, period.

The problem is both a shortage of product and a quantity of product that is all the same. Not everyone wants to see 3-D cartoons and 3-D horror films all the time.

Audiences want to see action and drama and comedy in 3-D.

Adults want to see grown-up 3-D films, and I'm not referring to porn.
 


3-D is a way of life because you have a left eye and a right eye.

Therefore, 3-D movies should be a way of life, never a perk.

 

People who hate 3-D that much should just pluck out one eye. Then movies, like life, would be flat for them whether it's three-dimensional or not.

 

Allow me to be more clear, 3D should not be a way of life at the movies, that should have been obvious to you. 3D AT THE MOVIES is a gimmick, plain and simple.

 

I look at all this 3D like a treat, in small doses it's okay but the moment you start making it a standard meal it becomes excessive and tiresome. Hell I actually don't care for 3D at home, either, I demoed one of the new 3D TV's and first off the effect wasn't all that great and second the glasses muted the colors far too much. They had a trailer for Toy Story 3 playing on it and if I'm going to watch that movie at home I'm more interested in seeing the colors pop more than random objects.

 

2D has never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this fad anytime soon.
 

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

2D has never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this fad anytime soon.
 

 


Stereo has never impeded my enjoyment of any performance so I don't see myself jumping on-board this surround-sound fad anytime soon.

  Black and White has never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this color fad anytime soon.

 

 

Title cards have never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this "talkies" fad anytime soon.

  It's weird watching people who enjoy all the tech-wizardry of modern movies poo-poo the latest tech advancement

 

[Hanson]

Originally Posted by DaveF http://www.hometheaterforum.com/for...-more-money-out-of-moviegoers/60#post_3723061

 

Stereo has never impeded my enjoyment of any performance so I don't see myself jumping on-board this surround-sound fad anytime soon.

  Black and White has never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this color fad anytime soon.

 

Title cards have never impeded my enjoyment of any film so I don't see myself jumping on-board this "talkies" fad anytime soon.

  It's weird watching people who enjoy all the tech-wizardry of modern movies poo-poo the latest tech advancement

If I had to wear restrictive headphones with diminished sound quality to enjoy surround sound, I would stick with stereo.

 

If I had to wear distracting rainbow glasses to watch movies in color, I might stick with black and white.

 

If I had to stick my head in a fishbowl to hear actors speaking, I might rather read title cards.

 

I am not opposed to having 3D cinema in the future, but this current implementation, with light attenuating glasses and gimmicky, computer generated parallax effects just sucks balls. As a technical "advancement", it is barely progressed from the 50's.

 

[Richard--W]

Some people stick their head in fish bowls and sand dunes because they like it there.

 

For the rest of us, life goes on.

 

[Hanson]

Wow, you really need to take some medication. Do you work for the 3D lobby?

 

Obviously, the glasses bring down the entire experience, and the technology to create it brings down the entire experience.

 

I spelled it out for you since you seem incapable of understanding a simple analogy.

 

But go ahead and slaver over Clash of the Titans in 3D with the other 8 year olds.

 

BTW, yours was the most belligerently classless post I've ever read on this forum.

 

Hmm... I guess I should have quoted your garbage.

 

[Michael Reuben]

 

Originally Posted by DaveF /forum/thread/298725/3-d-movies-or-...-more-money-out-of-moviegoers/60#post_3723061

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

It's funny you mention that, Michael, I have yet to upgrade to lossless and am still using standard DD and DTS and I still think it sounds outstanding hehe. It's probably one of those situations where once I do get it in my home and hear the difference I'll be thinking "what the hell took me so long to get this!?".

 

However I've seen 3D TV in action and am not impressed in the least, I agree 100% with Hanson on every single point he made.

 

Bury my head in the sand? Over what? An insignificant and unappealing gimmick?

 

[Nick Martin]

If 3D were "a way of life", that would leave many people screwed over, specifically people who suffer from headaches and eye fatigue because of the glasses, the effect, or both, and also people who simply cannot see the effects because their eyes aren't able to.
 

But who cares about them, right?

 

Ridiculous.

 

 

As for lossless audio, the only reason I haven't noticed a world of difference every time is simply because I have to keep volume at a certain level thanks to living in an apartment building. Let's just say if I were the 'screw the people down below me' type, well I wouldn't have the volume buttons at the ready.

 

I've never done an A-B comparison like I've done with Dolby vs. DTS, which itself is skewed because DTS tracks are louder and it's difficult to make a direct comparison with that. It's easy to fall into that louder=better problem.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

That's a whole other can of worms, Nicholas, I have a friend who can't see the 3D effect because of an eye disorder, if everything eventually goes 3D I guess she's screwed, right? Or relegated to waiting for DVD and BD for those films?

 

It's insane.

 

And how about those with Epilepsy? Again...screwed?

 

[Michael Reuben]

 

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin
 

As for lossless audio, the only reason I haven't noticed a world of difference every time is simply because I have to keep volume at a certain level thanks to living in an apartment building. Let's just say if I were the 'screw the people down below me' type, well I wouldn't have the volume buttons at the ready.

 

I've never done an A-B comparison like I've done with Dolby vs. DTS, which itself is skewed because DTS tracks are louder and it's difficult to make a direct comparison with that. It's easy to fall into that louder=better problem.

As if the winking smiley weren't enough of a tip-off, you've probably read enough of my disc reviews to guess that my contribution to Dave's list should be taken with a king-size rock of salt.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

 

It's insane.

 

Even if most films and movie theaters go 3D, there's always room for "flat" projection to accomodate those who won't or can't watch 3D. Just like there are special projections for the hearing impaired and Deaf (with special subtitles or other options). In the extreme, it goes to the courts, gets rolled into the ADA and is another part of our "accessibility" legal landscape.
 

 

[Hanson]

Originally Posted by DaveF
 

What they could do is have subtitles that can only be read if you wear glasses with polarized lenses. Problem solved.

 

The theaters could even jack up the prices for these showings! Everybody wins!

 

[DaveF]

Indeed

 

My point, if missed, is there's no need to go hyperbolic over possible problems for those who can't enjoy 3D because of physical limitation. This has been an issue since the dawn of moving pictures, and we've fumbled our way through it.

 

And if you want to go hyperbolic, you should advocate for the elimination of all movies, since the blind can't enjoy any of it. And then there's the tragic deaf-mute...

 

But somehow, if it remains popular, I don't think 3D will be the end of humanity. Given that there's enough people that find 3D uncomfortable, there will always be conventional projection.

 

[Edwin-S]

I have no doubt that the majority of films will continue to be shot in the conventional "2D" format. I just cannot see the use of "3D" as being justified for every production. For example, maybe "Jackass 3D" will succeed in proving how useless "3D" is for conventional live-action comedies.