-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Movies in 3D


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
104 replies to this topic

#21 of 105 OFFLINE   SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,491 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted May 20 2011 - 12:35 PM

I hope you gave the theater a piece of your mind. Sloppy technical presentation is unacceptable at any ticket price. There really needs to be a toll free phone number to complain about these things, like that THX number on the end credits of the Star Wars special editions.



#22 of 105 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,555 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted May 20 2011 - 03:23 PM

If I ever see something along the lines of what Jose described, I go to and ask to speak to the manager at the end of the film, and I usually walk away with either a refund, or twice the number of free passes of the number of tickets I bought.  I hate having to get up during a film to complain (who wants to miss part of a movie they've paid to see), but I feel that if something is so off that I need to miss part of the movie to explain that to someone, I shouldn't be asked to pay for it.  And usually, in my experience, if I'm polite but firm about my objections, they do what they can to make it right.


By and large most people don't seem to notice these flaws, or if they do, they don't bother with complaining - which is the real shame.  If, when a mistake like that was make, every single person in the auditorium asked to speak with the manager or asked for a refund, instead of it just being the occasional one or two people, things might change for the better overall.  I really don't understand why more movie studios don't go to greater lengths to QC the theatrical releases - I mean, the budget for Pirates 4 was something like $200 million, right?  And another $100 million on advertising? If you're gonna spend that much money making a movie, how about going the extra length and spending a few extra bucks to make sure that your megabudget epic is being properly shown?


If I was head of a movie studio and I heard comments on a board like this (or elsewhere) where people talk about why they prefer to watch movies at home, I'd damn sure want to make sure that theaters felt compelled to do a better job so that (just like the old days) there'd be no comparison between the theatrical and the home experience.



#23 of 105 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,604 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted May 20 2011 - 05:09 PM

Against my better judgement, I saw Pirates 4 in 3D today. Once again, I was disappointed. There was nothing about this film that seemed to require 3D.


I've got to stop getting sucked into these premium 3D tickets that offer nothing for the money.


The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#24 of 105 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor

  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted May 21 2011 - 01:14 PM

as for me,i read the pros and cons of both camps and i can only state this as easy as possible.


3d does nothing for me,and i don't mean that figuratively but physically.


I have what,i believe you call in english a lazy eye,and the effect is that i have no stereoscopic vision and therefore all the hoopla about those great IMAX 3d films and the rest

gets me as excited as watching a mountain erode.


Being that my religion is film,even if it were to work i would still see it a magician's trick to create a diversion ( what story ? who cares ? look at the nice fireworks over here ! Wheeee! )


Not everyone has the budget and the ressources to make an Avatar.Actually,MOST filmmakers can't make an Avatar.


And correct me if i'm wrong but haven't filmmakers always tried to create a third dimension with framing or composition,lighting schemes,placement of actors,choice of colors and shadows

and all of this without the use of passive,active,intuitive and headache-corrective 3d goggles since Griffith ?





#25 of 105 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,732 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted May 21 2011 - 01:34 PM

I think I'll be checking out Green Lantern in 3D.



"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#26 of 105 OFFLINE   dmiller68

dmiller68

    Supporting Actor

  • 667 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2009

Posted May 21 2011 - 01:40 PM



Originally Posted by Patrick Sun 

I think I'll be checking out Green Lantern in 3D.




I thought it was pretty good. Not the best 3D movie but pretty well done. It does just add depth for the most part but there are a few cool effects.


Equipment: Panasonic TC-P65VT25, Panasonic DMP-BDT100, Pioneer Elite SC-37, TiVo Premiere XL, Limited Edition MW3 XBOX 360s with Kinect, Apple TV
Speakers: Definitive Technology Mythos XTR60 (3), Definitive Technology Mythos XTR20BP (4), Definitive Technology SuperCube II


#27 of 105 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,580 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted May 21 2011 - 01:42 PM



Originally Posted by montrealfilmguy 



And correct me if i'm wrong but haven't filmmakers always tried to create a third dimension with framing or composition,lighting schemes,placement of actors,choice of colors and shadows

and all of this without the use of passive,active,intuitive and headache-corrective 3d goggles since Griffith ?





All of which are magician's tricks. So why should the use of 3D be considered different? It is just another tool in a filmmaker's toolbox.



"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#28 of 105 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor

  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted May 21 2011 - 01:48 PM

For a tool to work,it needs to work properly 100 % of the time.A hammer needs to be able to hammer nails all the time or your house will be done in 20 years and will look like shite.


all the other tools do work.Not 3d as shown all over the internet.



#29 of 105 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,580 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted May 21 2011 - 02:56 PM

The tool does work 100% of the time. That doesn't mean that what is built with it is any good. A hammer works 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean that what was built with it is of good quality. That factor is entirely dependent on the tool's user.


"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#30 of 105 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted May 21 2011 - 03:14 PM

That is very well put, Edwin-S.


I'm afraid all these new digital 3-D systems are complicating matters and perhaps destroying the reputation of 3-D all over again. Competitive 3-D systems are being implemented and installed before they're ready. Sloppy projection is misconstrued for bad lensmanship. Bad lensmanship is misconstrued for sloppy projection. The dimness of the digital medium is blamed for poor 3-D instead of the other way around. Animators and Directors and DP's aren't taking the time to learn the stereoscopic discipline before they shoot. Films that work against 3-D because they are conceived flat and shot flat are being converted into 3-D whether they can make the transition comfortably or not. It's a bloody mess.


Fact: 35mm stereoscopic filming was perfected in 1953, and it still works amazingly well. This has been proved and demonstrated thousands and thousands of times. The operational principles are applicable to digital cameras.


Fact: if filmmakers take the trouble to learn and practice the discipline of 3-D BEFORE THEY START FILMING and to perfect the system they are using BEFORE THEY START FILMING many of these problems will simply go away. It's that simple.


Further, while it's fine to shoot all these animated features in digital 3-D, the stereoscopic process is applicable to more than big special effects and animation. Stereopsis serves live drama and live action just as well. Just look at the Civil War stereocards to see what 3-D can do for an image of a group of people or a row of buildings. There is better composition in those 150-year-old photos than in many of today's movies. Putting still photos into motion is an additional step, and putting into 3-D motion is another step. But it's a baby step. It's really not that complicated.



#31 of 105 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor

  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted May 21 2011 - 03:38 PM

Don't look now but i think you're making my point for me.


works 100% of the time ? really ?


So i guess i dreamed up all the posts of people i read about getting headaches and reviewers complaining of wearing glasses OVER their prescription glasses,paying extra for something im pretty sure we didn't need until the studios jammed it down our throats and made us believe we needed it so much there are now theaters in cities who will only have 3d showings.Being forced is the same as having no choice ( i can only choose ...errr... not to go to movies anymore ?.that would be the end of the world.No Harold Camping needed here. )


When was the last time you watched Airplane or Holy grail  ? did you watch it with 5 friends or 500 people.Not the same experience is it ?


you really see this as 100 % ? and i thought i sucked at math.Posted Image


and your second phrase about not meaning what is built with it is any good again reinforces what i said about creating diversions and fireworks.


its the chicken and egg thing,are movies worse because people accept them as such or do audiences demand such banal flicks more and more that the studios see it now as only

a business and forget everything related to movies and quality.I'm happy to see there are still Black swans and Fantastic Mr. Fox kind of films being made.


There use to be a time when folks used to sit in a theater and remind themselves they were not in their own living room for two hours and behaved accordingly.


I also remember when i saw E.T. the audience actually stood up and applauded as the credits roll.That was 1982.


And please don't tell me it's out of our hands.Posted Image



#32 of 105 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,555 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted May 21 2011 - 06:11 PM

Ben, I think you're completely right about audience behavior.  I'm bummed out by sloppy technical presentations and theater managers who don't seem to care, but I'm equally upset by audience members that have become completely inconsiderate of everyone around them.  While this term I like to use might be making it a little overdramatic, I think people have developed this "overwhelming sense of entitlement" that allows them to feel as if their desire to do something in a given moment is of greater value than everything else going on around them.  Sometimes this manifests as people talking on cell phones or texting during a movie, bringing small children to inappropriate movies instead of hiring a babysitter, or just blabbing loudly to the person next to them.  It's that mindset where people don't stop for half a second to consider that other people are there trying to enjoy it (or worse, that they have stopped, thought that, and disregarded that thought).  Yes, theater owners need to do better.  But so do audiences.  It's definitely a chicken and egg situation a lot of time, and I think the end result is that people who really care about seeing movies properly end up with high end home theater systems and stay away from theaters, instead of going and really fighting to make sure that things like silence and respect for other audience members are enforced and that technically films are presented right.  And to be fair, if you've paid $10 to see a movie, I totally get not wanting to get up and miss some of that movie to complain about something (whether bad behavior or technical issues) that's probably not going to be fixed anyway.  I really love going to see opening night, midnight showings - the thing about those is, when you have an audience of people who are so excited about a movie that they are literally willing to stay up all night (often on nights where they have to work in the morning) to see it as soon as humanly possible, those people know how to behave and don't tolerate crap from audience members.  People laugh, cheer, cry and clap at appropriate points - and if there is someone that's being disruptive, having every single audience member shush them at once has a way of shaming people into behaving.  I know midnight opening showings aren't always available or aren't possible for everyone to make, but I have never been let down by the crowd at one (theater owners seem to step up their game for them as well) - it would just be great if the mindset going into those would spill into other showtimes as well.


Now, for 3-D.  I'm a fan of 3-D, but I don't like some of the attitudes I've seen towards it, both pro and con.  (I'm not talking about anyone on this board, just what I've seen in general.)  You have one group of people who love 3-D so much that they're willing to call anyone who doesn't agree with them an idiot.  Then you have another group that hates 3-D so much that they literally try over and over to explain to people who do like it why they're wrong to like it.  If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that it's really never a good idea to tell someone that they're wrong to enjoy something they enjoy (at least in terms of the arts, if not in other areas as well).  I see things in the context of 3-D conversations that I'd never see in another discussion.  In what other discussion would it be considered acceptable to tell someone that they're an idiot or flat out wrong for liking what they like?  People as smart as Walter Murch and Roger Ebert have written numerous articles stating that "3-D doesn't work and will never work".  Well, here's the truth as I see it - 3-D works very well for some people, so even if it doesn't work for you, that doesn't mean that the medium is worthless, which is what some of these people try to say.  Other people, like James Cameron, will sometimes say things like, "everything should be in 3-D".  I don't think everything should be in color, in widescreen, in surround sound, or any of the other technical innovations that have come along the way - so there's no reason everything should be in 3-D either.

The difference, as I see it, between 3-D and other cinematic inventions is this: if you're colorblind, you can still watch a film that's in color (you just don't see the effect of the color, but the movie is still the movie).  If you're perhaps deaf in one ear so you can't truly perceive a surround effect, you can still hear the sound.  But with 3-D, you're being asked to wear a piece of technology (glasses) in order to watch the film - so if you can't perceive 3-D or if the effect gives you headaches or eyestrain, it's not as if the presence of 3-D is benign like the other examples I've just given.  That's why, as much as I want to see well-made 3-D films, I want to see 2-D screenings continuing to be offered, and I still want to see films made only in 2-D too.  If you like the 3-D effect and it works well for you (as is the case with me), that option should be there when it's something the filmmakers have incorporated into their art.  But if 3-D doesn't work for you for whatever reason, because it's not something that you can just "turn off" or ignore in a screening, it's important to respect that and offer 2-D options.

3-D is a great tool that can be really exciting for a lot of people - but for the people it doesn't work for, it's not just something that they can't see (like a colorblind person watching a color film), it's something that actively causes them physical pain.  No one should be expected to accept that as the only option to watching a film.  Those of us that love 3-D and have good experiences with it need to accept that for the people it doesn't work for, it's not a matter of just not liking it - it's a matter of experiencing a kind of physical discomfort one shouldn't experience when doing something fun like seeing a movie.  And people who don't like 3-D and have bad experiences with it need to accept that not everyone has the same issues with it, and therefore they shouldn't try to put people down for liking it or protest its very existence.  I don't like roller coasters - actually, I really really hate roller coasters - but I don't think other people should be banned from riding them just because the experience makes me feel sick.


Anyway, that's just my two cents on the matter - I think this is really a case where people on both sides need to accept that people on the other side have a legitimate reason for feeling that way, and just agree to disagree.  Again, I'm not talking about anything I've seen expressed in this forum (I think this forum is generally a more accepting and intelligent place for discussion than just about anywhere else) - I'm talking about conversations and opinions expressed in the media, as well as conversations I've had or overheard with other people in general.


(Now, for people who aren't opposed to the concept of 3-D but who think most of how its used isn't done effectively or could be done a lot better - who aren't against 3-D movies but are tired of having crappy 3-D experiences shoved down their throat in the form of theaters not choosing to exhibit a 2-D version - that's a perfectly valid point that I think is reasonable and respectful to other people's feelings.)



#33 of 105 OFFLINE   Jose Martinez

Jose Martinez

    Screenwriter

  • 1,113 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2003

Posted May 23 2011 - 10:50 AM

http://www.deadline....-ticket-prices/


I just hope Marvel producers (Kevin Feige) start to realize how 3D is killing box office and release their films in 2D only.  OK any money hungry producers.


Live Free or DIE!!!!!

#34 of 105 OFFLINE   dmiller68

dmiller68

    Supporting Actor

  • 667 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 29 2009

Posted May 23 2011 - 11:36 AM

I think the issue is the premium get rid of that and 3D will take off. Really they expected a big number four given three was terrible??

Equipment: Panasonic TC-P65VT25, Panasonic DMP-BDT100, Pioneer Elite SC-37, TiVo Premiere XL, Limited Edition MW3 XBOX 360s with Kinect, Apple TV
Speakers: Definitive Technology Mythos XTR60 (3), Definitive Technology Mythos XTR20BP (4), Definitive Technology SuperCube II


#35 of 105 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,978 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 23 2011 - 12:48 PM

I think the issue is the premium get rid of that and 3D will take off. Really they expected a big number four given three was terrible??

I assume that you're talking about Pirates Of The Caribbean but not only did they expect it to make a lot of money, it did. In three days, it's made nearly $350 million around the world.

#36 of 105 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor

  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted May 23 2011 - 02:54 PM

Again,if any film makes or does not make money,it's simply because of the film and the story,not because some technology catered-niche has been exploited.


or put another way,


Lets all go see a film about the specifics of plancton from Mars,an hour of that pregnant guy walking around,a good 20 minutes of Warhol's film Empire (look it up )half hour of jelly beans and 32 minutes of shots of people underwater reading Asimov's fake scientific paper entitled :The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline


BUT ITS IN REAL3D !!!!


would you still go ?


btw,anything Asimov related is bound to be fascinating,just not in 3d.





#37 of 105 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,978 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 23 2011 - 03:03 PM

Again,if any film makes or does not make money,it's simply because of the film and the story,not because some technology catered-niche has been exploited.

Technology might not mean anything but the film and the story are not even remotely close to being what determines how much money a movie makes. If they were then the best movie ever made would also be the highest grossing movie.

#38 of 105 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor

  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted May 23 2011 - 03:58 PM

Best movie ever made is the very definition of subjective wouldnt you agree ?

and this applies to worst movie ever made too.


I'll give you that in i was wrong to imply (suggest ? ) the only thing that helps make money is the story as there are many variables that are simply out of everyone's control,even studio executives (although i'm sure some of them wish they could control the weather to help ticket sales Posted Image )


What i meant to say was this,this whole business about 3D is obviously a ploy to make profits in a relative and limited time window of opportunity.And said window was created

by the indisputable fact that a couple of years ago nobody had ever heard of 3D tv's.Suddenly you're socially inept if you don't have one.


It's imperfect technology and will fade before it ever is.


http://tv.gawker.com...of-3d-are-there


Some guy cuts my arm on the street and tell me i'm lucky cause he's got band-aids to sell at 20 bucks.

If you hadn't cut me i wouldn't need the band-aid in the first place would i jerk ?


The entire century of filmmaking show this to be true.And the 50's small number of 3d movies shows it even more so.Headaches and eyestrains galore.


We don't want it,we don't need it.It will always stay a Bwana devil and never become a Kiss me Kate.



#39 of 105 OFFLINE   Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,555 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted May 23 2011 - 06:10 PM

Ben, I respect that you don't enjoy 3-D filmmaking, as is your right - I understand it's a technology that doesn't work for everyone - simply the nature of how people see and how the eyes and brain work excludes a certain percentage of the population from being able to enjoy it, no matter how well or how poorly it's done.  But I think you're incorrect to say that 3D has no artistic value and that "we don't want it" - well, some of us do.  As I asked about in my earlier post, I think it's important for people to respect other people's difference of opinion here.  I like 3D movies, but I also believe there should continue to be simultaneous 2D releases for people who do not enjoy the 3D experience.  I'd ask that you

The reason no one heard about 3D TVs a couple years ago is that they didn't exist - not because it's a sudden ploy.  There's been a growing demand for it based on both what filmmakers have produced for the medium and for what audiences have decided that they enjoy.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that you're socially inept if you chose not to purchase a 3D TV.


The failure of 3D movies in the 50s had less to do with the technology involved in filming the movies as it did with the technology needed to project them - digital projection has made it easier to keep the 3D image in sync in a way that projectors had difficulty with in the 1950s.  In the 50s, it cost a lot of extra time and money to do a 3D exhibition.  Now, for most theaters, it's simply a matter of updating the software that the digital projector uses and attaching a filter in front of the lens.  That's why 3D has come back in a big way - this is the easiest it's ever been, technically speaking, for a theater to do a 3D presentation.


Anyway, I don't 3D is a ploy - I think it's a technology that's easier to use and more widely available to filmmakers and audiences than in any point in history, and that filmmakers are enjoying having that new tool in the toolkit to play with.  Sure, there are some studios that see extra dollar signs because of the surcharge on the ticket price - but I'd argue that the additional expense for shooting in 3D or even converting to 3D probably balances out the extra charge or comes close to it.  When filmmakers display an interest in making films in 3D, they're just trying to find a new way to tell a story.  And I'd say the best proof that 3D is more than a ploy is the fact that not everything is made in 3D, and that not even all of the giant blockbusters are released in 3D.  Last summer, the producers of Iron Man 2 decided not to do a 3D conversion because they didn't think it was right for their film; the producers of Harry Potter decided to abandon the 3D release of Harry Potter 7 because they couldn't get the quality they wanted.  If 3D was simply a ploy to get more money, none of these filmmakers would have had any say in the matter - that not every film is in 3D, even when they're titles that might seem like they could be 3D titles, is all the proof I need that it's more than a simple cash grab.  And even if it was a cash grab - CinemaScope was invented in the 50s as a way to keep people going to theaters instead of staying at home watching TV - so you could call widescreen film a cash grab.  But I think it would be more accurate to say that economic concerns and a desire to give people an incentive to come to the theaters ended up adding to the artistic medium of cinema.  Not every film today is made in 2.35:1 widescreen - but it would be hard to imagine not having that format being used at all today.  I think the same will be true of 3D a decade from now - that it shouldn't be for everything, but now that it's available, that it will be hard to imagine filmmakers not having that tool available to them if they want to use it.


Again, as I've said, while some people do experience headaches and eyestrain from watching 3D content, there's a large portion of the population that does not.  I think it's wrong to suggest that the people who can enjoy 3D technology are somehow wrong for doing so, or for wanting new content to continue to enjoy that style of filmmaking.  I would never suggest that anyone is stupid or wrong for not wanting to see something in 3D, for whatever their reasoning is - I only think it's fair that people who do not like 3D to not condemn the entire format simply because its not to their tastes.



#40 of 105 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor

  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted May 23 2011 - 08:25 PM

Josh,i enjoy reading your posts,and for that i'll take back what i said.


"I " don't want it."I" don't need it.

But...


In screenwriting,you spend a lot of time gathering what amounts to exhaustive research (making sure it is and not of the procrastination category Posted Image )
Now i don't say i read everything but i do read quite a lot on the net.I have to.


Many forums,many film-related websites and so far,it just doesn't seem to go so well for the " I love 3d " camp though.From where i'm standing anyways


I'm inviting everyone here to read this article but most importantly some of the comments (not all of it as there are too many )


http://www.boingboin...ins-dimmin.html


In all fairness,at least consider the problems inherent with 3d showings.Not only with the technology,but if the presentation  for which folks are charged

extra for it is less than stellar,well i think the audience begins to realize they're dealing with a yes man.


In one of the Boingboing comments further down,someone posted this youtube link.I don't want to think a lot of cineplexes are doing this,of course,this is just to show the logistics of it,as i don't think any theater would actually have 16 showings of Iron Man.Yes ladies and gentlemen,one print running through 16 projectors.





For the love of Welles (atheists use film directors ) if this is the case and i'm thinking someone is saving money here,then how come popcorn is still 5 dollars.Obvious,to pay for the 3d conversion.

Are the studios still taking what now.. an 80/20 share of the profits in the first few weeks ?




And speaking of Harry Potter not in 3d..


http://www.cinemable...rt-2-23993.html


weren't both parts shot back to back ?

It seems 3d has developed exponentially in less than a year.


For the most part,i still see that most films who "decide " not to go with 3d are met mostly with hoorahs.


The last Jackass was in 3d.The very last thing i'm sure anyone wants to see is Steve-O's junk next to your nostrils


there is opinion and there is evidence.

I believe this would all be better received by a lot of folks (reviewers and audiences ) if some of the problems are resolved.


If movie presentations are met with higher standards

If movie tickets are not raised by making people pay for glasses that go in the recycle bin after.


I'll finish by saying this.

I think some folks in Hollywood are somehow shooting themselves in the foot,but then balance it out by making enough money to pay for the bill.

It comes down to voting with our money.


If you feel there are no problems whatsoever,then enjoy 3D,but please just make sure you're thinking this through.

Being a fan of all things time-travel,i guess i can only say that time will tell.


So i'm just going to ask the question and hope everyone who reads this thread answers.


3D.Yay or Nay ?



p.s.If this post reads like a stream-of-conciousness,it's because i tried cramming 10 posts into one.Sorry.