Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Is 3D Worth It? A Talkback Discussion!

Nordling here.

It wasn't all that long ago that AVATAR was released, and James Cameron assured us (and continues to do so) that 3D is going to be THE way to watch films in the theater from now on.  Whether it's an animated film, or big budget science fiction epic, or superhero film, 3D has quickly become the default release for these films, even going so far as to have a little blurb on the ads - "Also In 2D."  Just in case you wanted to see the film in inferior technology.

This weekend, KUNG FU PANDA 2 was released, and the numbers are in: 3D only accounted for 45% of revenue for the film over the weekend.  PIRATES 4 also suffered from a similar difference when it came to the 3D release.  I think the vote is in - family audiences, strapped for cash, would much rather pay the lesser attendance prices for summer films than the full 3D price.  There will be several more 3D releases this summer - GREEN LANTERN, TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS, to name some - and I'd bet that we're going to get a similar disparity between the 3D and 2D box office numbers for those films.

I saw KUNG FU PANDA 2 in 3D, and let me tell you, I thought the 3D was fantastic.  I'm especially particular about screen brightness, and at my screening, the picture was sharp, the screen well lit, and the use of the 3D in the film was immersive and fun.  The arrows shot around and past the screen, and the use of depth of field was pretty much perfect.  I think 3D works best with these animated films, as opposed to live-action or converted 3D.  I'm sure CARS 2 uses it in a similar manner.

However, the 3D in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES was worse than useless - it was actually a detriment to the film.  The night scenes were just so much mud with the dimmer presentation, and to have fighting scenes on top of that - it was chaotically shot, and Rob Marshall isn't particularly known for action films anyway, so the result was an incoherent mess when it came to the visuals of that film.  I didn't see THOR in 3D so I can't comment on that - I've heard varying reports that it was done well for a conversion and others said that the glasses darkened the screen too much.

Personally, when it comes to my choice for seeing a film in the theater, these days I choose 2D over 3D every time.  It's not because I don't like 3D - done right, like in KUNG FU PANDA 2 or even AVATAR, it adds to the experience and makes the film more fun.  But I've never seen 3D really add anything to the film as a story.  Even TRON: LEGACY, with the use of 3D in the Virtual World, didn't  have to be 3D, especially when the Virtual World is so dark and the glasses make it even more difficult to see.  Also, I have vision issues - I wear glasses and I have diabetic issues as well - and I always, always gripe when the screen is dim even in a 2D film, because I can't stand seeing an underlit movie.  Theaters may be little more than concession retailers these days, but dammit, when I watch a film, it has to be bright enough for me to see what's going on.  Major franchise theaters especially irritate when it comes to this - my THOR screening was horribly underlit, even in 2D, and I've complained every time to little avail.

But I don't think 3D should go away, either.  I've seen it done right enough times that it makes the film more entertaining.  Now, does it take away from the film?  Does it turn the art of film into little more than a thrill ride?  That's a debate that we can definitely have.  Do you see yourself paying more for 3D if the film is worth it, or would you rather see it in 2D and save the extra $5?  Do you have a family to think about, and does that make a difference when going to a 3D movie?  Feel free to talk about it below.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 31, 2011, 3:34 p.m. CST


    by whatevillurks

  • May 31, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Rarely worth it

    by PornKing

    For Avatar, it was worth it. For almost any other movie...not so much. The effects has drawbacks, and it's just not "there" yet. Once we can watch it without glasses, and things aren't blurry, etc... then it will be worth it.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    I personally enjoy it

    by DavidDunn

    But I think the option should always be there.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST

    You know what Christopher Nolan thinks

    by CT1

  • May 31, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST


    by Hufu Man

    Never has been, never will be. Gimme 2D every time.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST

    not worth it

    by Jesse Kroh

    Saw Thor in 3D. It reminded me of those old Viewmasters that I had as a kid. It was all 2d except that some of the 2D is closer than the other 2D. I was not overly impressed with Avatar's 3D either.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Without glasses it Absolutely Would Be

    by Crow3711

    It's a phenomenal effect, and if used right, and appropriately, it's quote stroking and enjoyable. But the tech kills it. Glasses = Shit. Make it in theaters sans glasses and I'm basically all about it for the right experiences. But this recent string of crappy usage combined with glasses that get in the way ABD darken the screen.,,it's basically shit. I still pick 2D over 3D for almost everything possible

  • May 31, 2011, 3:38 p.m. CST

    2-D All the Way

    by longloaddropper

    I brutally experienced seeing Clash of the Titans in 3-D, which convinced me more than ever that 3-D is a zombie gimick of the past unearthed from the grave to eat our brains. You just cant ever kill a bad idea.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:38 p.m. CST

    3D is like every Movie Innovation..

    by ShogunMaster

    ..Producers think people will fall for the novelty and add asses in seats. But the real innovation is when a Director creates a great movie where the Innovation enhances the picture. CGI was a novelty until Terminator 2 came out and made it an enhancement to a great movie. You can argue that Avatar used 3D in the right way too; it wasn't the core of the movie, just and enhancement. When Producers come to realize that the core of movie watching depends on a great story FIRST, then they can start expecting more asses in seats from repeat business because it is worth people's hard earned bucks.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    It's a tool

    by mukhtabi

    3D is an excellent tool, but it MUST be used sparingly. The only films that can truly exist as awesome 3D experiences, were the ones that were visualized from the beginning as such. Animation naturally blends with 3D, but I'm sure the right prep work Live Action could be just as good. But it has to be for the RIGHT film. You just can't 3D everything. I personally watched Tron:Legacy in 2D and loved it.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    It's a gimmick, let it die

    by Cruizer Dave

    I've never had a 3D experience where I thought, "you know, that was totally better because of the 3D." For one thing, it gives a certain percentage of the movie going public a headache to watch. It's not fun to have a headache. The extra money it costs is a ripoff. I'm sorry, but it is. Third, as will any gimmick, it draws attention to itself. Whenever I see a 3D movie, there are always parts that pull me out of it. Rather than being immersed in the story, I find myself trying to follow the 3D elements.

  • Correlation does not equal causation.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST

    A Movie Is Not a Video Game

    by WriteFromLeft

    No one wants to wear glasses to see a movie. It's cumbersome and annoying. People want a great story that moves them emotionally. Something they can connect with. If Hollywood spent more time and money paying writers and properly developing stories, they wouldn't have to make such a technological fuss. A movie is not a video game.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:42 p.m. CST


    by rockness

    see my subject. snoozeville. who cares.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST


    by rockness

    even without glasses, who cares. i have a 3DS. The tech is cool for sure but I'd probably go into epileptic shock if I had to sit through 2 hours of it.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    That would be a "no."

    by Astronut

    HOLLYWOOD: Take the money you spend on 3D and use it to give us a better story.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    not really

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    works for some films, but the 'novelty' of it will inevitably lead to people not working so hard on the script. Style over substance.<P> Sure, keep it for the dumb summer tentpole movies, as long as it doesn't threaten the whole medium, ie a Lynch film not getting screened or distributed because it is a dark drama with no reason to utilise the technology.<P>

  • May 31, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I like 3D when done right, but I don't need it in every movie

    by Dreamwriter

    When 3D isn't used as a distraction, to pop things out of the screen directly at your face, I like it. I especially like films that just use it to add depth, to make the movie sink into the screen. But I don't need 3D in every film I see - I was quite fine watching The Hangover 2 in 2D, and I even saw Kung Fu Panda 2 in 2D and was happy with the film (but that's the kind of movie I would pay extra for 3D had I the chance). As long as the theater doesn't have its projectors dim (something many projectionists do incorrectly thinking it will make the bulbs last longer) 3D is fine.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    There should be no additional fee for 3D. The End.

    by Rev. Slappy

    I think this is the part that's rubbing people the wrong way: what's the justification for charging a premium for 3D? Thor cost about 150 times as much money to produce as Insidious did, but the ticket price is the same. Yes, making a movie in 3D adds about $30 million to the budget, but so what? Studios take the risk of hiring expensive actors whose fees and back end deals are more than that. Should I be paying a $3 fee for Will Smith being in a movie? There is no justification for charging another $3 for 3D. What's the money for? The glasses? What if people could buy their own glasses? Katzenberg says in the future everybody will have their own 3D glasses anyway. I am not going to pay an extra fee for something that adds nothing to the experience. The only movie I've seen in 3D where I thought it actually added something worthwhile to the experience was How To Train Your Dragon.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST

    As a general rule, I'm not a fan

    by OBSD

    I think that making every big movie 3-D is just another way for Studios to pad their box office grosses as well as to cut down on pirating. For the most part, crossing my eyes for 2 hours in order to for the movie to be not blurry as well as the splitting headache that comes with the 3-D is not worth worth an extra 3 bucks. Just because James Cameron tells me it's not a gimmick doesn't make it so. 3-D should be regulated to what it's always been; a cheap gimmick for horror movies and not "The Future" of watching movies in the theater.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Stories should be 3.5-D before the special effects

    by Eternal Watcher

    We get that from most Pixar movies, but rarely, if at all, from regular movies. We'll get that from the last Harry Potter movie, that's for sure

  • May 31, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST


    by Bruce Thomas Wayne

  • May 31, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    2D for me, and I'm 3d-man

    by 3D-Man

  • May 31, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Oops, forgot Thor was in 3D.

    by Rev. Slappy

    That was probably a bad example in my earlier post. I specifically went out of my way to see Thor in 2D. Now that I think of it, Thor cost the same amount of money to produce regardless of which format you see it in. Why did I pay less to see it in 2D?

  • May 31, 2011, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Not at home...

    by vango

    I have a great Samsung LED LCD flat screen tv. Now it's obsolete? And I have to buy a new blu-ray player? AND GLASSES TOO? Hell no. No matter how much they try to shove this down our throats, it's probably not going to last. It's okay in the theaters, but then when I watch the movies later, not in 3D, I can see the gimmickery. (I'm talking to you, Thor's flying hammer!)

  • May 31, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    3D porn is always worth it.


  • May 31, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    I like 3d

    by ComSamVimes

    But if it went away, I don't think I'd care. Live action films never look good (avatar looked great, but let's face it, it was 99% animated). I enjoy the animated movies in 3d tho. but all of this converting old movies to 3d is stupid.. and the extra money for the glasses is such a scam.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Ten fucking quid a ticket for an hour and a half?

    by alan_poon

    Plus tickets for your kids and extortionately priced food and you are looking at upwards of £40 watch a film nowadays. No wonder piracy is as popular as it is.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Tool in a toolbag.

    by Aaron

    Like Odin said. A weapon to destroy or a tool to build. Done well it works. Done in a hack manner it does not. I liked THOR in 3D. It really gave the cosmic space shit some reeeeally tangible depth. T'was mildly distracting during the scenes that were smaller in scope.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Yeah, like the prices are going to come down after 3D disappears.


    How do you think the studios are going to recoup their costs from all the failed 3D shit they pumped out?

  • May 31, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    I'm with crow3711 and the choppa...

    by schreck

    ...3D porn does create an enjoyable stroking experience.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Not that I haven't liked it before but...

    by itsthemoney

    I feel like having 3D cheapens movies, making some sort of sensational experience out of what are sometimes very quality films. Films can be felt as if you were really there without the visual technology, if they are well made. I really enjoyed AVATAR in 3D, but since then, I've never seen a film that made the extra three or four dollars feel well spent. When filmmakers make a film in which the 3D technology is more important, like Avatar or Coraline, the results are a lot cooler than movies like Toy Story 3 or Thor, where the 3D just felt like it was tacked on at the last minute or something. I really hope filmmakers aren't forced to make their 2D movies into 3D in the future, for the sake of a quick hopeful buck. That is when we will really start to have a problem.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    I enjoy it.

    by This_talkback_is_on_CRAZYPILLS

    Not on total crap jobs like Clash of the Titans, mind you. And to those assholes who did that, I hope your families all rot in hell. But I even enjoyed it in PotC 4. It worked well in the scenes with King George. It wasn't the jumpy-outy-at-you kind which is find. I'm thinking of when Jack was walking around the big table or whatever it was. (on another note, I thought the movie itself was good fun and I think anyone who nitpicks it have their own issues at work there) I think 3D should exist as it does now, as a supplement to 2D. Give me the choice because I don't want to see it every time.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Reserved seating, real butter on my popcorn, I'll pay extra for those.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    Just give me a clear 2D image and great sound, and I'm more than happy.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Standardization or Nothing.

    by UltimaRex

    If someone wants to make a 3D film it must be shot in 3D with the correct brightness added by people who know exactly what they are doing and do it well. That is all.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Actually, I don't think 3D will disappear.


    It will become a more "premium" experience, a la Avatar or, say, Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams. But ticket prices will continue to inflate as the bells and whistles to get people to come to theaters will become more prominent, at least for a time. DTV is the future, folks. Get used to it.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Fun but not worth the extra price. Overall...NO.

    by BilboRing

  • May 31, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Um LESBIAN porn, only, please.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    I don't need some stranger's johnson poking me in the eye...

  • May 31, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST



    Plus, the glasses make for solid protection against wayward spurts.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    3-D is not worth the higher ticket price

    by KarlKolchak

    If there's a 2-D option, I'm going to take it. Every time.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    "I don't need some stranger's johnson poking me in the eye..."


    Then keep your damned face away from my gloryhole!

  • May 31, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    My favorite thing about 3D?


    It makes Jaws 3 extra rape-y.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST


    by schreck

    I actually wear a modified Darth Vader helmet with 3D lenses for the ultimate in protection. The heavy breathing sounds just go naturally with the look.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Sometimes worth it

    by percane

    I think the problem is it's become a money grab. for starters, you should be able to keep the glasses and pay normal (or slightly higher) ticket prices to get in, not the 2 or more dollars just to borrow the glasses. The other problem is post conversion. No matter how well the post conversion is done, if it's not filmed with 3-D in mind (light levels, movement speed, length of cuts, shaky cam, etc) it's going to turn out terrible no matter what. Animated movies are easier to make 3-D because they have smaller color pallettes, smoother planes, less detail, etc. How to train your dragon, Despicable me, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Ice age 3 all had great 3-D and were totally worth it, but i've only seen a couple of live action films that were worth it.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:55 p.m. CST

    The main reason I want 3D to succeed:


    To prove Devin Faraci wrong.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Make 3D price same as 2D!

    by bellendo

    IMHO there are three things wrong with current 3D in cinemas 1) The cost of tickets: I have three children and the difference in cost of a family 3D ticket compared to 2D is vast. 2) Crappy conversions : the industry has shot itself in the foot with crappy 2D to 3D conversions. For every good 3D experience there about ten awful ones 3) The tech itself: No one likes wearing 'sunglasses' in the dark and as Christopher Nolan pointed out you loose both colour and luminance so dark scenes are terrible. Until glassless 3D is available and its used to enhance a film and not just to squeeze money out of punters it will still be an expensive and almost unavoidable novelty. I for one will be searching out 2D versions this summer - especially for HP7P2

  • May 31, 2011, 3:56 p.m. CST

    In rare cases...

    by Ian

    3d is worth it. Say what you will about the story of Avatar, but I was completely blown away by the visuals mixed with the 3D. It was however not enough to hold my attention through the (in my opinion) all too often seen storyline. When used sparingly, and for the correct movie, it can be a neat tool to further immerse yourself in the movie, but 99% of the time it's a wasteful gimmick at best and in no way does it warrant the extra cost of a ticket.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:56 p.m. CST



    If you don't mind, I'm going to try that. CHOPPAH gets off on menace.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST


    by percane

    I'd also like to see a film shot at the higher frame rate (i forget the process name) that a couple of people have talked about. I think the hobbit is being filmed that way?

  • May 31, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST

    3d theaters

    by tlsonata

    There have only been a handful of films where I felt 3D truly made a difference, but even there I don't think I would be missing too much if I saw them in 2D instead. As you stated in your article, 3D has more times than not been a detriment to the film with studios pushing fast a cheap conversions to rake in a few more dollars. I'm not sure how 3D projectors work (that if any digital projector can display 3D or only specific types), but every theater in my city has at least 2 screens dedicated to 3D now, so I don't see it going away any time soon. However there is a disdain growing and I know many people who will refuse to see a film if 3D is the only option. So the backlash may not be represented in this year or next, but I feel that 3D will eventually become strictly IMAX territory, where only the major tentpoles of the year will be shown in 3D. And I'm okay with that.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Telling Hollywood to spend money..

    by Madcapper

    ...on develpoing better stories rather than using it on 3D development, is just as effective as Nordling telling some dude at the cinema that the screening was too dark, and hoping for it to change. If ya'll want movies with better stories, then stop buying tickets for crap movies. Suffering box office numbers, now there's a language the studios understand...

  • May 31, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Agree that animated films.....

    by Taragor

    are getting it right for the most part (picture quality/3d really works overall). The others are trashing it up and still demanding the extra dollars. All in all, it's way too expensive as it is. I'd rather see tickets come down in general, or see 3d as a bonus that gets you in the door without an additional charge... "come to our theater and we will show it to you in 3d for the same price as 2d" To me there are bigger issues though...get rid of cell phones and have reserve seating. I am about ready to drop $50 for a movie to come right to my own home in peace and loving quiet.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Holodeck or bust

    by Shia LeButt

    Until there is technology like the Holodeck on TNG where the objects and people actually are in front of you, I prefer 2D than something that messes with your brain and make your eyes try to see things that are not really there, ie, you can't focus your eyes where you want if that's not where the director wants you to look etc. I only saw Avatar in 3D and I had a headache and general feeling of "weirdness" for a few hours after.

  • ...Gloryhole porn sort of begs for 3D, doesn't it? Begs for it like a bitch in heat.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:01 p.m. CST


    by Ian

    you're 100% right, but alas there's no accounting for taste in Hollywood. Big budget films are always made for the lowest common denominator, it assures a good take at the box office after all. That's not to say I don't enjoy big budget movies or anything like that, but there's always going to be more shit movies out there, 3D or not.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:01 p.m. CST

    mono - more 3D than 2D at my local cinemas

    by bellendo

    At my local cinemas its becoming harder to find 2D for the summer 3D releases as they are converting all the bigger screens to digital. To watch in 2D we now have fewer daily showings on smaller screens.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    I feel as though I've always been one of the FEW to support 3D...

    by whatupsummmmmmbitch

    ...but, even so, 3D has been pissing me off this summer. I agree that, out of all the films released this summer, Kung Fu Panda 2 was the only one to use 3D effectively. I didn't see Thor in 3D because of post-conversion, and I refuse to see Green Lantern, Captain America, and Harry Potter 7p2 in 3D either, for the same reason. Pirates, although shot in 3D, was as you said... a WASTE in that format. (I feel the same with Tron) The only film coming in 3D that I'm REALLY excited about the format is Transformers. Although the film was 80% shot in 3D, it sounds like they're giving a damn with the format rather than just tacking it on for extra money. An overwhelming majority of people hate the format. Many claim it gives them headaches. Most claim it ain't worth the extra $3 - $5. When I went to see Pirates 4 in 3D IMAX, the ticket was $20... When the Blu-Ray comes out... it'll probably be $20. WTF! 3D, and IMAX as well, need to be worth not only our money... but our time. Hopefully, people are speaking out with their wallets against post-conversion 3D and poorly-excuted 3D. Bring back the sense of wonder that the format gave us with Avatar. Regardless of what you think of that film... it sure looked pretty. Yeah, I talked a lot there, but it's something that's been brewing in my head for a while and felt as though I should share, given the topic at hand. Sound off!

  • May 31, 2011, 4:02 p.m. CST

    shialebutt: right on.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    As long as holographic projection technology is coming, I don't mind 3D as an interim step.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Only if SHOT in 3D

    by Evil Sean

    The 3D in Avatar was amazing and made for a truly immersive experience...because it was shot in 3D with stereoscopic cameras. The 3D depth went "into" the screen - creating an effect that imitated looking into an aquarium. The objects looked round. This is the only movie I've seen that was actually shot in 3D and it's terrific, game-changing technology. Thor, on the other hand, was shot in 2D and it shows. The 3D is the old tech - the same they used for Jaws 3D so many years ago. It's a flat plane in front of another flat plane. No fish tank here, just a plain old diorama like you made in 3rd grade. Simply put, it looks like shit and is a shameless excuse to inflate ticket prices. Also, since it wasn't conceived in 3D, sequences on the Frost Planet are too dark and you can't tell what's going on. Action sequences planned in 2D look confusing and you miss all sorts of details in the frame because one object or character is being "shoved" in your face. The only way to remedy this is for us as moviegoers to boycott 3D movies that are not shot in 3D. The new technology is great and we should reward those projects with our money. Paying the same price for an inferior product like Clash of the Titans, Thor, Green Lantern, etc is making it way too easy for the studios to keep giving us crap instead of raising the bar (I'm talking about 3D here, not the quality of the movies themselves). If we wanted to boycott movies based on their quality, Fox would have gotten out of the super hero game years before we were subjected to X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

  • a 3-D feature length collection of 3 to 5 shorts starring Christina Hendricks. Shark rapists optional.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Story vs. Tech in Hollywood

    by lv_426

    I am all for them giving us better stories in place of so much attention paid to things like 3D or whether or not any given movie is based on pop culturally known intellectual property versus original films. Thing is that adaptations, remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels, 3D, splitting films into 2-parters, etc... is what gives today's Hollywood bean counters the confidence to pull the trigger on spending the kind of money necessary to make films that don't look like shit. While in some cases, throwing more money at a script by hiring more and more writers until one of them "gets it right" is a novel idea. The problem is that there will always be a project here or there that no matter how many A-list screenwriters you throw at it, that it still might suck. Sometimes overwriting it can even make it worse or dilute what made the concept interesting in the first place. Hollywood is way too conservative to put all of their eggs in the storytelling and originality basket. To them, all the new tech and redundant remake fever gives them the feeling that they are investing their money in the closest they can get to a sure thing as is possible.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:04 p.m. CST


    by Ian

    since when is shark rape optional?

  • May 31, 2011, 4:05 p.m. CST

    A well made movie

    by Gumbo1

  • May 31, 2011, 4:05 p.m. CST

    3d tv

    by tlsonata

    Now where I feel 3d will always have some place in the cinema, 3dtv is still a long ways out from mass adoption. The glasses are too expensive and releasing major films like Avatar as a brand exclusive only makes me feel that this format will eventually snuff itself out and join the ranks of hd-dvd, laserdisc, beta, etc... Close, but no cigar. I'm sure in the future manufacturers will learn from their mistakes and release a glasses free 3d or at least inexpensive, universal glasses but for now it's just a disaster

  • May 31, 2011, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Getting a Migraine=not worth it!!!!!!!!!

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • May 31, 2011, 4:06 p.m. CST

    ....needs no stinkin 3D !

    by Gumbo1

  • And that includes Avatar.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Do they even clean the glasses after you watch

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Pink eye outbreak waiting to happen!

  • May 31, 2011, 4:08 p.m. CST

    3D sucks.

    by captain_kirk

    Look, it's a marketing gimmick that adds to the price of everything--the price of filmmaking, the price of projection. The cost gets passed on to consumers. My kids are too young to destroy their eyeballs, and won't want to keep glasses on for 2 hours. Further, seating is everything. Curved screens, poor projection, etc, etc, make it all a crapshoot. And it doesn't add anything. I saw Thor in 2D and it was awesome. If you want 3D superheroes, I have a 30 year old viewmaster you can borrow with a spidey disc.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Since it makes me sick, I vote no.

    by cookylamoo

    You can forget about shaky-cam too.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    captain_kirk: Wrong.


    If you want 3D superheroes, look upon THE_CHOPPAH. Shit, I may even be a 4D superhero.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    NO - Its not worth it

    by TopHat

    3-D is just a way to get people to go to the theaters and studios to get critics to recommend people go see a film, even if its inferior. The technology adds absolutely NOTHING to the movie. In fact, it almost assures that the film will be lazily shot and executed: Every shot will not be considered for the best possible depiction of the scene, but, for the best possible use for the 3-D; Every moving camera shot will done to give the typical "rollercoaster" or "poke in the eye" effects or will constantly be moving through things, i.e. Zemeckis. They will not be used to convey the meaning or feeling of the scene, but, to show the 3-D. AVATAR is just as guilty of this as any other. This, of course, is nothing new. CGI was and continues to be toted in the same hyperbole; audiences were directly, but mostly indirectly, encouraged to go to the theater to see the great special effects on the "big screen" instead of their tiny televisions, and critics recommended viewers go watch a movie they freely deemed mediocre just to see "that amazing special effects shot" or "the great cgi". Going back even further, an actor's performance was, and continues to be used as a selling point for a picture; audiences would be/are told to go see a film based on a "stellar" performance by an actor, not because the movie itself was/is good. The difference is that these selling points in the past didn't cost the consumer more money to go and see the film. Whether the cgi or actor performances were great or bad, ticket prices were the same. Now they've figured out a way to get more money out of it. And that's what 3-D technology really is: Its not a "revelation" or something new and different, its a continuation of what we've been getting for generations. Only now, there's more money to be made. Audiences are indirectly told that if they don't go see the Real-D IMAX version of a movie then they're behind the times. Parents are told that if they don't take their kids to the brand new trendy cgi movie in 3-D, then they're making their kids be left out of the loop. And film geek sites (including AICN) almost force the idea that if you not only don't go see 3-D movies but also not wholeheartedly support the technolgy both as a film making tool and marketing ploy, then you're not a "real" movie fan and nothing more than the cliche of the old guy yelling for the kids to get off his yard. All of this is not to make the movies better, but, to keep getting people to pay the maxium amount to see them. Because, this doesn't only pertain to movies in the theater. It also includes the millions being made from 3-D television sets, Blu-Ray players, and even OnDemand products. They not only can just keep churning out edition after edition of already made movies using the "brand new technolgy" marketing ploy, but, they don't even have to create new movies and televison shows; All they have to do is make the same movies and T.V. shows over and over using the same archetype characters, themes, and stories, and people will be told to go see them just because they're in 3-D. (Again, this is nothing new, but now more fiscally acceptable). Its still just snake's oil.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Glasses and price are the definite killer for me

    by cookepuss

    I know that it's a different experience, but the glasses-free S3D of the Nintendo 3DS has spoiled me a little. The fact that the effect is so effective makes it that much more appealing. Going into theaters and having to don silly looking glasses feels like a step backwards. Sort of like going back to manual crank windows in your car when power windows have been available for decades. And the price.... Oy! The price. Here in NY, you end up paying 50% more for a ticket to a 3D showing. Ticket prices are expensive enough as it is. Paying $16 (at least) for an effect that may or may not contribute to the experience is a risky gamble. Between snacks, gas, tolls, and maybe lunch/dinner out there, it's not impossible to spend $100 just to see a movie. If I can save $5 or $6 on a ticket, why not? Hell! I'll even attend a $6 matinee just to save the cash these days.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Choppah, which stop-motion films have been in 3D?

    by WriteForTheEdit

    I'm blanking.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    @starwarrior and others re price

    by captain_kirk

    I agree the price differential is bullshit, right off the top. Especially since the same plastic eyeglasses can be used at every movie. Stop ripping us off.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:12 p.m. CST

    I forgot to add

    by lv_426

    that with Hollywood screenwriting, it is not that the A-list writers can't write better movies, it is that the studio execs or uber-producers might demand stupid shit being added in (giant mechanical spider syndrome), or that they rewrite it to be more "broad" (basically, dumbed down and or made more palatable to as large an audience as possible). I think the reason we get a lot movies that come close but in the end miss their mark is that Hollywood films often try too hard to please everyone. Of course, it is impossible to please everyone all of the time.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:13 p.m. CST


    by BILLY

    There was ONE FILM that utlizied 3-D well in the last 2 years. I believe it was UP , and maybe even TOY-STORY 3. But so far, it's been slapped on EVERY.FUCKING.FILM, and lately, the 3-d ISN'T utilized. At first, I think some films TRIED to have the 3-D ADD to the film, but now it's just a stupid cashgrab. IMAX is what should be focused. IMAX is fucking amazing.And NOT that cheap-ass IMAX light, that is the same as every other theater. So, for me, 3-D sucks ass.I HAVE seen 75% of films in 3-D ,(I had a girlfriend, sue me), and to me, it was always a waste of cash.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Business first

    by invisibo

    3-D, and by proxy, digital cinema has been more about studios protecting their product and less about whether it's good for cinema. Studios developed the 3-D tech we are seeing and entered into deals with the exhibitors to install these monstrous TI projectors with a guarantee that they will provide the films (read: products) and put butts in the seats that will not be able to properly "steal" films via camcorder. Which is also where the surcharges are coming from and are not likely to disappear even after the tech is paid off because 1) they've hooked you into that price and 2) they'll just install a new projector. The film is ONLY available to the theater at the specific times so projectionists and theater staff can't even sneak an employee screening in as used to be the norm for 35mm. The studios will continue to push for more and more reliably secure methods via digital projection via 3-D no matter the detriment to the quality or integrity of THEIR films. That some filmmakers excel at using 3-D and others do not can be said for non 3-D filmmakers as well. Do you really expect every film to be great? Why would every 3-D film be great? That being said, I am eager for 3-D to quietly disappear but am doubtful that will be the outcome.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    it's an expensive novelty.

    by captain_kirk

    give me smellovision. No one will remember the 3D effects when recollecting a film.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    3-D for Free

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Open your eyes and go outside. 3-D can not recreate that, and you can see it for nothing (unless you need eye glasses of course).

  • May 31, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST


    by Borabora

    I hope it dies swiftly.

  • Personally, I pick 3D whenever it's available, and haven't seen the 2D version of a film in a year and a half when 3D was available. Ya, it may be a "gimmick" and ya maybe poor people who have like 17 kids are going to not splurge the extra $5 fucking dollars (which isn't much considering in most towns you can get a 5 spot just for showing your titties, man or woman), but at the end of the day its a fucking visual effect. When done right it looks great and adds to the immersion and ability to suspend belief. When done wrong it's shit. Well you know what? I've seen a far higher percentage of movies with awesome trailers that turned out to be refund-worthy shit than I have seen 3D movies with 3D so bad I wanted a refund. "3D" isn't a goddamn actor, or a line in a film. Saying "3D is a gimmick" is like saying color or sound is a gimmick. If you're color blind, what the fuck does color add to a movie? Nothing. If you are deaf, what the fuck does a John Williams score add to a film? Nothing. Hell, if you're a cripple you could argue that seats in a movie theater are gimmicks because i mean shit, you already have a seat and it fucking moves! What the fuck do those bolted down fuckers add to the film? Anyway, I sure thought the name of the site is Ain't It Cool NEWS, not Ain't It Cool to Rehash The Same Old Shit Once Again Because I Got Nothing Better to Write About.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Stop noticing

    by BoxCar

    I enjoy the 3D for the first twenty minutes of a movie. After that, I stop noticing unless the movie shoves something in my face. 3D is bringing very little to the movie going experience for me and not worth the up-charge.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:14 p.m. CST

    It doesn't work for me, I'll rather have

    by SisterSpooky

    clearer picture quality than 3D. So NO, I'm not a fan of it either, unless they invent something that doesn't discriminate the disable or visually impaired.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Looks like a nerdy John Travolta

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Next the the crazy laughing woman in that picture above.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST

    not recently

    by taff

    Have not seen anything recently in 3-D and had no desire. Saw Pirates twice in 2-D and nothing in the film prompted me to wish I had 3-D. My family and I tired of paying additional admission for something that was only somewhat interesting. Of course for a movie with a horrible storyline and really bad dialogue like Avatar, the additional expense is not justified for visual.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Backlash against 3D

    by Candy ass monkey suit

    I have a lot of admiration for jim cameron but on the whole 3D thing the guy is talking out of his backside to be honest. i heard him the other day say that all the networks in the U.S will be broadcasting their shows in 3D in 5 yrs time! ARE YOU CRAZY! So Mr Cameron - Do you really think people will want to sit down on the couches wearing darkened glasses the entire night? I don't think so man. I don't mind seeing the occasional 3D film id the 3D effect is top notch but after too many cinematic disappointments ( yes you clash of the fuckin titans) i've pretty much given up. I saw Thor in 2D the other week half expecting the screening in 2D to be empty as it was on at the same time as the 3D one next door..wrong ! the theatre was packed to the rafters, then the following week i saw Pirates of the Caribbean in glorious 2D too and guessed it the theatre was packed too. I Once i heard the 3D effect for both the movies i just mentioned was WACK! i immediately knew i wouldn't give them anymore money to see it than was necessary. Cameron seems to be the only one shouting about 3D in tinseltown, most directors in hollywood have voiced their reservations over it, most recently Martin Campbell who's Green lantern is actually in 3D! I still think till they solve the glasses issue it won't be accepted into the home as a mass media purchase. The odd Cinema jaunt is one thing but at home is another ballpark entirely.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:15 p.m. CST

    coporations fucked themselves?

    by warrenE33

    I dug Avatar, and paid to see it several times in theatre. I think 3D definitely ties into Hollywood's current "we-do-spectacle-best" business model. (fair to say that hollywood differentiates itself from indie and guerilla and youtube filmmakers by : spending millions to blow shit up and create spectacle?). ... but instead of hollywood filmmakers trying to explore 3D filmmaking as it's own bag of tricks, we've seen a lot of ill-thought-out bullshit. They're still making 2D movies. Thus there is no need to pay extra. .... even if a cgi movie promises high quality 3D experience : i don't really trust the filmmaker to have thought the moves and separation depths and cut timing of 3D shots through. always feels like an afterthought slapped over a 2D movie mindset. - - - adding 3D is like adding blowjob seats. at first it sounds great. but eventually you kinda wish the sell-out artists were able to properly integrate it into their movie. it just becomes an annoying distraction. You wish Cameron would come back and deliver an experience that could only be properly enjoyed in blowjob seats.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    The only movie I'll see in 3D is...

    by film11

    GREEN LANTERN. The extensive CGI is just the sort of thing that could work well in 3D. Also, since they spent more time on the 3D than most conversions do, the results might be worth it. And also, I saw the trailer in 3D...and even though it was a conversion, it looked leagues beyond the shot-in-3D PIRATES 4. Aside from will be 2D all the way.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST


    by NinjaRap

    I've seen movies that looked good in 3D (Avatar), but not a one that's justified the extra expense. I don't even think it's worth keeping the 3D dial up on my 3DS - it's just disorienting. Fuck 3D.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Coraline was stop-motion, I believe.


    So was CHOPPAH's erotic retelling of the Teapot Dome scandal. That one's only available to select audiences.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    No, and I am getting tired of it taking times from 2D films.

    by shutupfanboy

    I am not paying more for a film. I usually go to Matinees due to the current price of tickets unless its something huge or someone else wants to do nights. I am feed up with this notion that if a gimmick worked for one film, it will work for it all. Terrible idea to charge people more during a world wide recession especially now if we can get it for free.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Ah, "Coraline" was in 3D, that's right.

    by WriteForTheEdit

  • May 31, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Some points to debate....

    by kdoc13

    Here are the issues I have for and against 3D, most have been discussed above, but I wanted to condense and summarize some. No particular order. 1.) Not Perfected yet. - I think 3D would be better if you didn't need the glasses. That is a given. Depth would be an added benefit for a lot of things, especially if it is transfered over into TV with sports programs, and video games. A Call of Duty, or first person shooter would benefit from it. But for each of those, there's a type of movie that would be hindered by it. The Dark Knight for example, all the darkness on screen would have to be brightened for the 3D process, and would take away from the feel. Then there are the transfer issues. Not all films are filmed in Real3D, and use the crappy transfer process, which even when there's a good transfer, isn't as good. 2.) Other options - I am far more impressed with IMAX presentations of movies than 3D. Theaters have gotten so big that the IMAX screen often does the viewer more justice than trying to see something in 3D on a regular screen. 3.) I pay for Story, not 3D. - I went to see The Dark Knight, because every review I read called it incredible. It wasn't in 3D (although I did dig the IMAX, as said above), but it didn't matter. I skipped even the 2D version of On Stranger Tides, because almost every review I've read says it's not as good. I'd actually rather see less movies, but quality ones, than bad ones in 3D (I'm looking at you Clash of the Titans!) 4.) Gimmick - I have yet to see a movie (other than Avatar) where the 3D wasn't strictly a gimmick. Avatar used it as a tool to tell the story, but things like Kung Fu Panda, it's all about that 1950's let's make it look like something's flying out at the audience, trick. And it's really distracting. So many movies, more than I can name, actually seem to screech to a halt the moment is used. (I will call out Spy Kids 3D though, that was an abortion recorded on film.) And studios seem to take advantage of the gimmick even when there's no point to it. Step Up 3D? What is the point of it there? The Avatar exceptions are few and far between. Most of the time, it works best with animation, like Toy Story 3, How To Train Your Dragon, or Despicable Me. I like to think the air-battle scenes in that turd of a movie Flyboys might have benefited from it, but even then, I'm not sure it would have helped. 5.) Cost - If you go to see a 2D movie, you're already paying for their 3D conversion. I watched the cost of a movie in LA go up by $4 at my favorite theater, for 2D movies, the same time they dedicated their first theater to 3D projection. And when I did see Avatar in 3D, I had to pay another $10 for the privilege. I have the Blue Ray in 2D, and while I enjoyed the 3D version, having watched it in 2D a few times since then, I don't think it was worth the extra ten for it. And I hate that when I go see a 2D flick, I'm still chipping in for 3D projection, which I have yet to be convinced is a long term thing. If I'm paying an extra $10 for a movie, I want a few ushers in the theater to keep people from distracting me from watching the movie by constantly talking, or opening and closing their cell phones (lights in a dark theater are distracting you idiots), or people bringing their 7 year old to see a movie I specifically go to in order to avoid kids (Saw IV). 6.) Better Options - I think I mentioned IMAX above as an alternative which I'd actually be more inclined to pay for. But, with all the digital presentations now, I think there are still better options for film presentation. I would like to see high definition digital in theaters. There are ways of adjusting the sound of a film which doesn't involve making me deaf, which would be nice to have. 3D sound would be cool, especially if you could allow it to be personalized for the audience member (a volume knob in my seat would be great! Pay attention Regal!) But to hear a voice that's supposed to be coming from behind you, actually coming from behind you, while you are watching a higher definition picture, on an Imax screen, that would be awesome!

  • May 31, 2011, 4:18 p.m. CST

    3D only works for certain films, not every single one...

    by brocknroll

    I thought the only movie that was very cool in 3D was "Thor". I thought the 3D effects were amazing in "Thor" but other than, the new trend in 3D is garbage.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    No ... Cannot wait for it to fuck off.


    Overused ... only adds something to a select few movies.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    In Stockholm, Sweden, THOR is only showing in 3D

    by BenBraddock

    Thus I haven't seen it - I refuse to pay 50% more on the 2D ticket price for an inferior product. Hell, as a wearer of spectacles, I can't even wear 3D glasses in comfort. The hell with cinema owners here, I'll catch it on Blu later.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST


    by schreck

    Coraline was 3D. Nightmare Before X-mas had an absolutely worthless re-issue in 3D. I couldn't detect any 3D at all.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:21 p.m. CST

    All 3-D films have the "Gimmick" scene

    by Samuel Fulmer

    With House of Wax it was the dude with the paddle ball. With Jaws 3-D it was the fish heads just floating around for minutes. In Polar Express it was that first person scene of the train on the tracks for like 5 hours. For Avatar it was those stupid floating pollen things for hours. It's these stupid scenes that just linger way too long just to give you this stupid 3-D effect for the morons out there.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Stockholm theaters are suffering from, uh, Stockholm Syndrome.


    "The studios are ever so right!"

  • May 31, 2011, 4:23 p.m. CST

    3-D is great if you set out to use it as more...

    by Lobanhaki2

    ...than just a gimmick. I watched the 3-D version of Tron, and was just blown away by how immersive it made everything. I caught sight of a demo for Avatar in a big box store, and I finally realized what it added to the film (I saw the film originally in 2-D). It's a special effect, to be sure, but like any special effect, it's novelty is going to wear away, and people are going to start looking at things without much emotional investment in that technology. Then the question is going to be this: what meaning is this going to add to what people are seeing? If you can use it to make the fights seem more dangerous, the flights seem faster and riskier, if you can use it to extend and augment depth in dramatic scenes, then it will be an asset to your film. At the very least, I think it's going to get filmmakers more concentrated on z-axis blocking (that is, how you arrange things in depth for the shot) We don't need more movies that are 3-D for the sake of milking the cow, we need more that are that way because the creative talent behind the picture wanted to enhance the experience for the audience.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:23 p.m. CST

    When is A Serbian Film getting 3D post-conversion?


    I can't WAIT for genderblender's breakdown of that one.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:23 p.m. CST

    benbraddock-Interesting about the Thor thing in Sweden

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Perhaps this is why it's international box office and that of the new Pirates has been so huge, Hollywood forcing 3-D down their throats.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Fuck 3D. Hate it.

    by stu_pickles

  • I just don't understand how it affects the optics of a movie/theatre...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Or how about Anti-Christ 3-D

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Now the giant log is thrown at your Junk!!!

  • May 31, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    As for 3D, I like it more for the theater going experience

    by lv_426

    but for home viewing I am not really all that jazzed about it yet. Once there are 3D TV's that do not require glasses, more movies and video games that have a 3D option, I will probably buy a 3D TV. Also, by then my current HDTV will be getting up there in age, so in a few more years it will be the perfect time to buy into the whole 3D thing. As for the debate of 3D being a fad, I think it is here to stay. I don't know if it will completely take over all of theatrical and home viewing of films and television programs, but it will definitely be a permanent fixture that coexists with regular old 2D. There will be glasses-less 3D displays coming in the next year, and the tech for the various 3D television display methods will only get better and more affordable in the next few years. Also, as more and more films and games are made to be shown in 3D, then the public's appetite for 3D content will grow. Remember that people said the same "doom & gloom" things about DVD, HD televisions, and Blu-ray when those technologies were still in their early years. DVD vs. VHS? VHS is dead. HD vs. SD television? HD flat panel displays have obliterated standard def tube TV's. Blu-ray vs. DVD? Still an ongoing battle, but even if Blu-ray doesn't completely kill DVD off, the two formats are coexisting nicely now and will continue to do so until some new format comes along that is better, or until digital downloads are a reality for the majority of the media watching populace. So I would say 3D vs. 2D is gonna be more like Blu-ray vs. DVD for awhile. It is definitely here to stay though.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Nolan is right

    by double_l88

    The only time I did not mind it was Toy Story 3. Good thing the master Chris Nolan does not use the 3-d gimmick in his films.

  • Tron did an okay job with it, and every other movie has completely wasted it.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Some will say yes, some will say no. I will say the price hike

    by TheJudger

    is a fucking joke. I think it adds to the experience, I only like 3d films filmed in 3d. I don't like the conversion jobs, and I avoid them like the plague. I know lots of people who make films don't like the 3d systems. I used to follow a camera guys twitter page and all he did was bitch about how difficult it was to film with 3d camera's this guy has worked on some pretty big films. The price hike was the first mistake. I mean i already fucking hate having to sit through 15-20 minutes of fucking commercials before the fucking trailers or film start. You would think paying more would end shit like that. Here's the way i see it. The audience doesn't hate 3d. Sure people will say it sucks. Bla bla bla. But everyone who watched movies now has tried one Real D flick. Drop the fucking price and cut out those fucking commercials. Otherwise unless the eco picks up expect 3d to sell less tickets. I dont feel bad for the buisness when shit like this goes down. It means they are losing touch with us. Not the other way around.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Depends on the film, definitely...

    by vorlonkosh

    I hate 3D gimmicks that break the 4th wall. It completely trashes the movie for me. Movies that use it to enhance the environment, such as Avatar did, well it's totally worth it.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Z-axis blocking


    The great filmmakers have always been good at it, but 3D actually gives them the chance to create more of the impression they had only been suggesting before. When I see Marty Scorsese and Werner Herzog embracing 3D for certain films, I take notice.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:27 p.m. CST

    I'd rather see it die out...

    by firewhale

    I'll seek out 2D every single time. 3D just screams "gimmick!" to me. I've only seen one movie in 3D, Avatar, and even in that, I felt like the 3D took me out of what little story there was - I thought the best use of it was in the early no-gravity scene. Now, I acknowledge that I have not seen any of the lauded 3D animations (Coraline, How to Train Your Dragon, etc), but I concede that it could have a continued effective use in that environment. The bigger issue for me is that the 3D craze is starting to affect the availability of movies in 2D. I dislike that I cannot see Thor (or whatever) on the bigger and/or better screens in the multiplex because those are reserved for the 3D versions. Lastly, the 3D phenomenon is starting to affect the QUALITY of the 2D viewing experience. /Film had a link to an article from the Boston Globe that revealed that (quoted from the /Film article), "several Boston area movie theaters...are projecting 2D digital movies with an unneeded, special 3D lens still on the projector. This makes the 2D film look up to 85% darker than the projector is capable of simply because it takes time and effort to remove the 3D lenses for a 2D show and theaters won’t do it." This absolutely infuriates me. I love going to the movie theater, but this sort of nonsense is what is going to drive me to setting up a kick-ass home theater and ditching the whole theater-going experience...why wouldn't I? Here's a link to the /film article: and here's a link to the Boston Globe article:

  • May 31, 2011, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by Nordling

    I have macular edema, and a lot of floaties in my eyes. If the screen isn't bright, it makes seeing movies extremely frustrating. I can see 3D movies, but the dimming of the glasses makes it difficult.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Re: 3D/Hollywood Money Sponge

    by ArmageddonProductions

    Back in the Fifties, movies were actually being SHOT in 3-D, so you were at least getting an "honest" experience when it came time to see them. This conversion process that seems to dominate about fifty percent of what gets released is a scam. I have yet to hear a kind word about any movie that got converted during post for 3-D, and for the expanded ticket prices, it had goddamn better be superior to its 2-D brethren. And despite flocking to utter shit like the [fill in the blank with the name of your favorite horror/fantasy/sci-fi movie from the Eighties] remake or a BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE sequel, it seems like audiences are actually learning that they don't want to see dim-looking Hollywood crap through cheap polarized glasses in a multiplex full of assholes when they can sit at home with their overpriced 3-D HD sets and actually get a better experience. Good luck, George Lucas; I have a feeling those 3-D re-releases are finally gonna drive that whole "nobody wants to see this shit again" point home ...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:27 p.m. CST

    RE: "erotic retelling of the Teapot Dome scandal"

    by WriteForTheEdit

    I play President Warren G. Hard-On in my version... Is this getting too off-topic? My bad...

  • No thank you.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST

    3D is shit...

    by redtom

    and, by shit, I mean shit. Watching a 3D movie is like reading a frikkin pop-up book through the wrong end of binocular sunglasses.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST


    by bobborries

    I 2 would like to see 3D on G4 phone rendered on a G5, that would be a 1st.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:28 p.m. CST



    This whole 3-D thing is little more than a gimmick...just like it was in the '50's. And thought the 3-D effect is way better, it is not worth paying a higher price for. As with almost everything, there are exceptions to the rule, like AVATAR. When I saw TRON LEGACY last December in 3-D, I was disappointed, because, in my humble opinion, the 3-D did little to enhance the viewing experience. But I believe filmmakers should think long and hard before filming a movie in 3-D-only do it if it is going to greatly enhance the movie, such as Cameron's AVATAR. And 3-D conversions are WORTHLESS!!! If it wasn't made in 3-D to bvegin with, don't mess with it. I am VERY skeptical about the whole STAR WARS 3-D conversion thing. Ticket prices are high enough without shelling out extra bucks to see crappy 3-D images. If I want that, I'll track down an old Viewmaster. I would not be sad at all to see this current wave of 3-D mania disssipate just like the previous ones. James Cameron can say what he wants, but so far, to me anyway, AVATAR has been the exception. Until they make a 3-D system that doesn't involve wearing uncomforatble glasses, I have to give this new 3-D fad a thumbs down.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:29 p.m. CST



    I bet your version got gushing reviews, too ...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST


    by Madcapper

    ..that is the sad truth, and perhaps something we have to live with. I do watch some of the blockbusters myself, even though I know the story probably is going to be weak. Saw Pirates 4 last weekend for 2D. I don't know if the 3D would help the script, but somehow I doubt it. Which again makes me wonder if a 3D effect CAN add anything to a film as a story...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Since "Gorilla at Large", It's been all downhill.

    by cookylamoo

  • May 31, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    It can't die out soon enough!

    by TheDrow

    I'm one of many people through out the world who lives daily with an eye problem and for whom 3D is completely wasted. In my case I was born with Exotropia and 3 eye surgeries later I still have issues with depth perception and my eyes working seamlessly together. Which as a result means, I can't see 3D! Now you might say "that's too bad, I'm sorry for ya" and recommend that I just stick to catching movies in 2D. And hey as long as that's an option I'd happily agree with you except for one problem. You see there's been this amazing little advancement made for most movies in the last couple of years... IMAX I love IMAX! Every chance I get I'll gladly pay extra to catch a movie on that beautiful big screen. Do I care that it wasn't filmed in IMAX? Nope. It'd be nice if everything was but for me its still worth it to simply have the extra large extra intense screen. My problem though is that almost everything being released in IMAX is only being released in 3D. Now mind you not only can I not see 3D but I have to wear the glasses, thus giving myself a headache, just to be able to see the movie normally. So, in order to be able to enjoy a wonderful advancement in movies, I have to pay extra, get a headache and deal with the glasses just because of 3D. Which my friends and most reviewers seem to all agree very rarely if ever adds anything to the movie. So yeah as far as I'm concerned 3D can't die out soon enough and if there's an active movement to kill it sign me up!

  • May 31, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Dumb, unnecessary, gimmick to raise ticket prices

    by Dr. Strangelove

    I will always choose 2D over 3D. Audiences are beginning to get wise, judging by the box office numbers for the latest Pirates film. This is the beginning of the end for the 3D "revolution".

  • May 31, 2011, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Fun if it were cheap

    by NoBlasters

    In the past I didn't mind watching films that were shot in 3d or digitally animated films in 3d. Never films that have been "converted." Green Hornet really?? But I only liked it as a fun gimmick not something that's gonna cost you an extra 3 bucks. When I saw Beowulf a few years back in 3d it was amazing and the ticket prices were only 50cents more. Hell I'll go as far as to say for some films a dollar would be okay as long that's the price no matter when you see the show matinee or otherwise. But they're over saturating the market with crap and pricing us out so I stay away from all 3d

  • May 31, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Its a matter of time...

    by boardbrtn

    We'll see for sure in about a year or two. I think that if Avatar had come out this summer, we'd see 3D really kick off. It NEEDS that one big movie that really shows off the tech after people feel like it's just a gimmick. When Avatar came out, it was still new and people didn't know how they felt about it. The Hobbit may just be that movie, especially with it moving at 48 or 60 FPS. We'll see. For now, it's a gimmick and if it continues this way, it'll die around the time we get an Avengers movie.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Life is in 3D...

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...but movies are an "escape" from real life. So far, I have only seen TWO films that were "better" in 3D -- TOY STORY 3 and AVATAR. I suspect that 3D is a gimmick...but it will continue as long as people spend the bucks on it. If moviegoers stop spending the money to the point that it is less viable, then companies will stop making them (or "converting" them). Like someone else said, they only work well in heavy CGI or animated features. HOWEVER, I do want to see the conversions of STAR WARS -- just to see if ILM can make those films "better."

  • May 31, 2011, 4:35 p.m. CST

    The Bat-Signal is not a beeper

    by BozeMaster69


  • May 31, 2011, 4:36 p.m. CST


    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    ...than watching a 3D film with a scratch on the glasses. Uggh. It happened to me during a film...and I had a headache afterward.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:36 p.m. CST

    After 4 or so sub-par experiences, I've given up

    by Guj19

    I refuse to see movies in 3D anymore. At no point am I saying, "Oooooooohhhhh, Ahhhhhhhh." It gets annoying and distracting from what I want to see. I might pay LESS to see a movie in 3D... but I'm not sure I'd want to...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Always has been a novelty, will soon return to that state

    by kevred

    Until complete immersion/sensory simulation technology becomes the norm - which would presumably involve either individual immersive suits or chambers - it will always be a novelty, and a bit of a distracting and largely pointless one. And, of course, once the above technologies do become commonplace, society as we know it will collapse and the world of The Matrix will come true.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    we ain't seen nothin' yet

    by brightgeist

    the thing is, there have been like 4 movies that were actually SHOT in 3D (i know that's not true, but for the sake of the argument let's say it is). pretty much everyone agrees that in AVATAR the 3D totally rocked and also added a lot to the immersive experience. also, most people agree that with fully animated movies like TOY STORY 3 or HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, the 3D is awesome. but now, discussions like this one here are popping up, questioning whether the 3D we've seen so far is "worth it". and the few movies that actually COUNT until now, are being named as the "exceptions" here, when actually everything else is just infant-stage crap. this whole 3D thing is like automobiles were in 1905, and with the exponential rate of technological development, try to think what 3D will be like just 10 years from now. today, shooting in 3D requires and entire team of stereographs, and all the tech is basically still in prototype phase. but 10 years from now, you'll probably be able to point a 3D camera at any given scene and it will automatically adjust the lenses so that the 3D image looks great. it will become a standard tool, not a huge experiment like it is today. so i really think we shouldn't judge 3D by the majority of live-action 3D movies we've seen up to this point, because most of those have been conversions. instead, we just judge it by the best of the best we've seen, such as AVATAR, DRIVE ANGRY, and the animated movies, because that's the minimum quality 3D will be about 10 years from now. 3D conversion houses will probably be one of the more short-lived bubbles in economic history ever. they'll convert all the huge older movies from Cameron, Lucas and Jackson, and by the time they're done with that, shooting in 3D will have become so much cheaper and easier and of course better than converting, that no more new movies will even think about doing conversions anymore. at least that's what i hope :) so my answer to the main question is a big YES, i love 3D when it's shot or animated, and the converted stuff doesn't even really count in my book. oh, and don't hold your breath for the glasses-free 3D in cinemas. beaming stereoscopic images into the eyes of 100 people or more, who keep moving their heads all the time, isn't gonna happen anytime soon :) instead, get a pair of those Oakly TRON 3D glasses, they're awesome! i pity all the "regular people" with their crappy glasses whenever i enjoy a 3D movie with my TRON goggles :D

  • May 31, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    3D adds absolutely nothing to a film's story.

    by Dr. Egon Spengler

  • May 31, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    2D over 3D nine times out of ten

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    Avatar was good in 3d but it was a gimmick a sort of yeah that's pretty cool but I just have not seen any film that has been worth the extra cash in 3d and have been stung on 5 different occasions thinking ok this time it will be worth it and it just isn't. I have tried 3d and I just don't really like it. And it's definatly not worth the extra cash.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST


    by brightgeist

    should be stereographers of course

  • May 31, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Eyesight = no 3D

    by bubcus

    I have two friends that cannot see films in 3D because the glasses provided at theaters gives them headaches. Sure I could drop those two friends from seeing the movie with us when we go as a group but that's rather lame. Also, certain films are being pushed for 3D when there really is very little in it worth being IN 3D. Green Hornet, for example, only benefited for its 3D in the closing credits. Avatar and Up! were cool in 3D because your fear of heights actually kicks in in those films. Pirates of the Caribbean 4 didn't have anything in it that screamed "we need to see this in 3D." I saw PotC4 and Kung Fu Panda 2 in normal theaters. Kung Fu panda might have been cool to see in 3D but was fine without. I didn't feel I missed anything. Ultimately I don't mind seeing two movies a year in 3D. I generally see about 15-20 movies a year in theaters and wouldn't want to see more than 2 a year in 3D.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST

    3-D has been the dream since the dawn of photography.


    The history of 3-D from stereoscope to AVATAR.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Avatar 3D was worth it...

    by whoofman

    The 3D was AMAZING in Avatar so much so I had to keep nudging my cousin and telling him to shut the fuck up because he kept saying "wow this is soooo cool" all the time. If they could all be like that yes I don't mind paying extra but I saw Thor in 3D and wasn't impressed at all.

  • It can make for a more immersive filmgoing experience when done properly. Alternatively, it can be gimmicky and silly looking. Also, I agree that 3D theaters need brighter projectors.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:44 p.m. CST

    GREAT GATSBY 3D will prove you all wrong

    by darth_hideous

  • May 31, 2011, 4:45 p.m. CST

    I doubt it will go away any time soon, at any rate

    by frank

    Since it is one of the only things keeping the theater industry afloat.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by Dr. Egon Spengler

    It's not worth it. Not one iota. I watched Avatar over the weekend in the way we've been using for a long time, and, the movie still disappointed. It's the story, stupid. My wife's answer: 3D movies give me very uncomfortable motion sickness. If 3D becomes the go-to in the future, they lose me as a customer. But they would be pretty out of touch if they abandoned the best format.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by brightgeist

    you probably guessed it: Oakley :)

  • May 31, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by Pawprint

    Until there's no need for glasses and it ceases to be a gimmick and actually enhances a film, then it's not worth it. Think of some of the best action/adventure films of the last 50 years like Raiders, Star Wars, Empire, etc, they didn't need 3D. It's not like you can't tell a story without it.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Nordling, maybe the 2D Thor was dark because...

    by quentintarantado

    of this...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST

    film-sound-color-3D-stereo-digital sound-digital-digital 3D

    by ufoclub1977

    Anyone who is thinks that the effort to keep adding dimension and fidelity to a recording/exhibition technology is worthless is shortsighted both ways in time. 3D is good. Requiring glasses to see it or losing brightness is not cool. Using 3D as a gimmick like making something pop out at you reasons that disservice the narrative is just dumb ass mentality. HAs anyone mentioned the biggest 3D most remarkable 3D film out there because of it's author and subject matter and intention? "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" by Werner Herzog. This shows how 3D is not a technical leap in recording reality that is limited to bubble gum pop entertainment, and proves that people who think 3D can only be a popcorn flick money grab gimmick are actually the blind sheep instead of being the observant wise observers they think they are. Remember there was groaning when sound was introduced, when color was intriduced, when stereo was introduced. Just like there was groaning on the jump to stereo movies in the home, to DVD and now HD/Blu-ray. It's the same throughout history. Some "artists" might abuse the new technology in a gimmick like way, but the technology, if it is offering fidelity closer to real perception, will win.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:49 p.m. CST

    I just bought a new Panasonic VT30 3D television

    by Titus05

    not because I enjoy 3D but mostly because it's the best 2D TV...the 3D is just an added feature which I can choose to ignore...but now that I have a 3D capable set I'm hoping more well-shot 3D movies get released...I actually think 3D looks better at home then in the theater...the biggest problem with 3D is that most films are still shot in 2D and upconverted to many movies were actually shot using 3D cameras? still seems like a gimmick versus an improvement on the theater going experience

  • May 31, 2011, 4:50 p.m. CST


    by lv_426

    I like the IMAX format for movies that are shot that way, or that have sequences shot in IMAX, and for something digitally shot and rendered in super high resolution and 3D. So, stuff like The Dark Knight, Avatar, or a Pixar film would be good examples here. For most films though, I think the IMAX is often times not worth the extra price. Inception, which was expertly shot, looked better on a standard sized theater screen than it did on the IMAX, where it was easily apparent that it wasn't meant for such a large screen. There is nothing wrong with this as Inception was shot in standard 35mm, which when stretched out to gigantic IMAX proportions starts to break down a bit from in terms of having a nice sharp amount of image fidelity. I've noticed that when films that weren't originally conceived and shot for the IMAX are shown on it, the image is sometimes softer and the grain can be more distracting because it becomes bigger and blockier and not the finer film grain that is desired by most viewers and filmmakers. I guess it sort of makes the grain structure more blocky and video-noise-like and less film-like.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Anyone think 2D is getting pushed out of cinemas?

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    Went to see Thor on release and there were only about 4 showings on the whole day in 2d. So I went for a 2d showing not wanting to pay any extra and it was projected analogue (film as opposed to digital) and looked like shit. Same thing with pirates of the caribbean looked awful (but then that could have just been the film) and I am thinking that cinemas are sidelining 2d in favour of the extra gouge the can give customers for the 3d. It's as if they are begrudgingly showing 2d in the same way as providing disabled access.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:50 p.m. CST

    My opinion on 3D

    by Nautilus_nrm1

    3D is an excuse for the studios, filmmakers, etc... to raise the ticket prices...

  • May 31, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    3D sickness

    by brightgeist

    people will get used to it. if you showed a regular 2D action movie to an aborigine, they'd probably throw up after a few minutes. viewing habits change, and people will get more used to seeing 3D.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    It's a fucking ripoff

    by Grandpa Bunche

    With the notable exception of Avatar's use of 3-D — and you can say what you want about the rest of the film — I have felt profoundly ripped off every time I've shelled out the extra cash to see the latest film with 3-D effects. I learned my lesson long ago, but unfortunately the friends I see new movies with always insist on the 3-D option, despite loudly bitching about how the picture was too dark or how the alleged 3-D added nothing whatsoever to the film's visual experience. It's especially bad here in NYC where a 3-D film can rook you for almost seventeen bucks. Figure into that the exorbitant prices at the concession stand and also factor in, if you happen to be taking your family, how many jacked-up ticket prices you have to shell out for. A night out at the movies for a family can turn out to cost you a hundred bucks or easily more, which considerably robs the experience of a good percentage of its fun, especially since the majority of the films that come out these days aren't even worth seeing for the regular 2-D price. I love going to the movies, I have since I was a wee child, but with the wretched quality of today's movies and the massive price-gouging, I would say I see less than ten new films on the big screen per year. Breaks my heart.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:52 p.m. CST

    I have a glass eye, so for me 3D is worse than useless.

    by vroom socko

    I don't watch movies in 3D, because I *CAN'T* watch them. Simple as that.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Depth of field

    by mercilessmagic

    The main problem with 3D films is depth of field. animated films do not have to worry about it, because everything is in focus. This includes Avatar. People forget that Avatar is an animated film. There are no real sets and very little actual photography in that film. 3D films encourage people to look around the image, to experience the 3D fully, but when cameras focus on one part of the picture, and the audience is looking at another part of the picture which the camera did not focus on, the human eye is trying to change its focal length, to focus something that is inherently unfocusable. This causes headaches. Film directors have not taken this into account. They like to use lenses that have a short depth of field, because of the dramatic images they capture for 2D film making. If they shot with long depth of field lenses, the 2D version would look like a soap opera, or bad television. The solution? When seeing a 3D film, always try to look at what the camera is focusing on, just like you would for a 2D movie and stop trying to explore the 3D space with your eyes, or only see animated 3D films.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    They didn't learn... They went for the cash grab

    by Andrew Coleman

    To date Avatar 3D is king. Tangled was nice too.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Sam F, yeah, I'd like to see grosses adjusted

    by BenBraddock

    to reflect 3D surcharges... for example bums-on-seats instead of dollar gross (which actually doesn't say a lot anyway). I was kind of hoping the non-2D option here in Stockholm would backfire, but it's hard to say from just seeing a gross wether numbers of tickets sold have dropped or not. I hope so, or the bastards will end up using the same tactic on all big 3D movie releases..

  • May 31, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    would anyone see a 3d film if they had no 2d option or wait for the blu ray?

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    There have been a few films that have slipped by where there was no 2d option and I just couldn't be bothered.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    waiting for Spielberg and Scorsese...

    by MovieGeekBlog

    If somebody can make 3D more integral to the story that's would be Steven Spielberg (with the soon-to-hit-out-screens Tintin) and Scorsese (wjo's also working on his first 3D live action!!). I'll wait and see and then make my final judgement, but right now I have to agree that aside from Avatar and the documentary Pina, it's all just been a BIG gimmick.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Not a 3D fan

    by Mr Lucas

    Give me better quality (higher frame-rate, higher definition, better sound) over 3D any day. I think those elements give more realism and are more immersive.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    like i said...

    by brightgeist

    AVATAR should not be seen as the "exception", but rather as the first movie that did it right. and there will soon be many more of the same and even better quality. just wait for THE HOBBIT in 48 fps 3D :) that will blow our minds.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    I am more interested in higher frame rates. Now that could be interesting

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

    But I guess we will have to wait for the hobbit in 2012 for that......

  • May 31, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    madcapper ...

    by Ian

    I think it's possible if the movie was doing something real and the 3D was top notch. I can imagine great 3D work for a movie set in the second world war for instance, where lessening the "distance" between the action and the audience could really depict how scary the reality of those battles were. It's too bad that's it's getting overused though, as a once in a while tool 3D could be an effective story telling tool. Mind you it would only truly work if the script / direction / acting were all in place too.

  • So get your god damned 3D off of my IMAX! This 3D craze is the first time in my life that my eye problem has truly made me feel disadvantaged.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST


    by brightgeist

    that makes sense, thanks

  • May 31, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    This converaation was more interesting...

    by SenatorJeffersonSmith

    A week or so ago when Ebert brought it up. Now it's played out.

  • May 31, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    The general consensus seems to be...

    by Lemure_v2

    that 3D WAS a good idea when Cameron revitalised it, but since then it's been turned into a cheap gimmick to make more bucks. Does not bode well for the Episode 1 re-release.

  • May 31, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    Crossing my fingers The Hobbit works in 3D

    by Cureguy

    I think Peter will get it right on The Hobbit. Hope it looks good in 2D as well.

  • May 31, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    For me, it's a distraction ...

    by thepentaveret

    ... not an enhancement. I'm always in the theater for a good story, not the spectacle. I didn't even care for it much on AVATAR, where I'll admit it was done right. Visually, I'm more interested in the larger frames per second format that some filmmakers are moving toward, like Peter Jackson and the HOBBIT films.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST

    CGI hasn't even been perfected so fuck 3d

    by alienindisguise

    and idiots like Lucas saying "3d isn't a technical thing, it's a creative thing" Shut the fuck up sir. If something requires computers in order to make it realized, it's technical. 3d is as overrated as those who slobber over the nuts of the red cameras. STORY IS WHAT MATTERS. I don't give a fuck if something's shot on a cell phone. If it's good, it's good. Directors need to worry about character and story depth and not worry about making some gimmicky crap to tack on extra $'s and add a blurb to their shitty photoshopped poster. 3d will die and I just hope it's soon.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Wait in line for 3D, no line for 2D. 2D everytime

    by Knobules

    Some theaters charge more for 3D, usually there is a line longer than other flicks. Decision is made right there. 2D it is.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:03 p.m. CST

    It really has nothing to do with the movie...

    by falconsclaw

    ...because everyone has different tastes when it comes to movies. Some people might like the latest from Pixar while some might prefer the lastest XXX fare; but are those people going to like or prefer those movies any more if they're in 3D? I say no. Box office receipts were in the 100s of millions before 3D came along and it will be long after the next technology comes along. The important thing is the question at hand: "Is 3D worth it?" and I have to say and resounding NO! The movie-going experience is already on the ropes because of inflated prices at the concession stand, noisy theatres, lousy lighting, sound, and/or focus, cell phones, pagers, digital videocameras, and the ever-present crying and screaming 3 year old that the parents thought it would be okay for them to see the latest Wes Craven film. Now, unto this let's throw on a pair of glasses and their $5-$7 additional price-tag and you've got the recipe for disaster. And the thing is, there is really no justification for the increased cost for those glasses. Figure it this way: a typical theatre seats roughly 200 people. That's potentially 200 people per show for 5 shows a day at $10 each. In other words, that movie is already making $20,000 per day. Now, add the cost of the glasses, that another $5,000 per day. As you can see, this quickly becomes a pretty good little money making scheme regardless of whether it enhances the movie or not. Yes, I know there's special cameras and processing that has to be done whe it comes to creating the 3D effect; but does it REALLY cost that much money to justify that increase? I say when the Hollywood studios open their books and show us a line item invoice which makes the 3D effect and it's costs justified, I'll stop choosing the 2D version over the 3D.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Avatar 2 in 2D

    by Geofruben

    If they shut down the whole 3D process we would all be walking out of Avatar 2 thinking it would have been a more enjoyable experience in 3D. In the right hands... Keep it coming.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST


    by ultragoregrind

    I too have vision issues where I cannot see 3d movies. We're in the minority... but i do hope 2D theaters do not go away completely as I will no longer be able to actually go OUT to a movie. At least we've got home theater, eh?

  • May 31, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Why are you fags scared of glasses

    by Rupee88

    Such whiny little babies..don't want to wear glases for two hours. I don't get it. As has been said above, 3D is worth it for Avatar and Beowulf and HTTYDragon and other animated films. I haven't seen a live action film yet where it really added much. So worth the extra $ for films and not worth it for others..pretty simple.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    If a movie is actually shot in 3D....

    by Kevin D

    ...liked Avatar was, than I'm perfectly fine with it. But all of this horrible crappy post conversion stuff on movies shot originally in 2D has got to stop. It always looks like crap and I don't bother with it. In fact, I waited to see the Piranha remake until it was on blu-ray as they didn't have a 3D option for it theatrically at least where I live at. My big problem is that if I do go see a 3D showing of a particular movie, why can't I use my 3D glasses from a previous showing of something else and not have to pay the 3.50 surcharge? They try to encourage people to put the glasses back in a recycle type box but I've paid for them so I just keep them. But when I tried bringing them to another 3D movie, I was advised that I still had to pay the 3.50 surcharge even though I had my glasses with me. That's just retarded that they don't allow people to bypass the 3.50 surcharge. It's all about money and anyway Hollywood can steal more money from people they're going to do it. And that's all this 3D post conversion BS amounts to is stealing money from hardworking people.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    As far as I know Thor was pretty much 3D only in Sweden

    by Knugen

    By Odin's beard that was a painful experience. Dark, muddy laughably bad conversion. 3D in Avatar didn't impress me either and don't even get me started with subtitles... (and dubbing is not an option - if I was a filmmaker and some fucking german douchebag wanted to dub my film I'd have him shot)

  • May 31, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST

    correction to my original post

    by Kevin D

    I meant to type that they didn't have a 2D option for the Piranha remake theatrically. Fingers got moving a bit too fast there. Ha!

  • May 31, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    I should additionally mention 2 things

    by mercilessmagic

    1. never watch a converted 3D film, they doubly suck 2. Coraline was actually photographed, not animated by computer or cell, but the 3D was excellent. This is because depth of focus was not an issue. the figures and sets were small enough that even with dramatic lenses, background focus was not an issue.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Great Gatsby, no need for it

    by double_l88

    Great Gatsby with that cast, its too bad its going 3-D. Seems pointless in a movie like that.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST


    by TheDrow

    Yeah and it makes me especially happy that I have a great system at home. The problem is though that I love the theater and I feel like this 3D crazy is doing its damnest to steal that from me. I see 2 to 3 movies a month, happily paying for IMAX when ever possible, so the more things go 3D they more they lose my money. But like you said we're in the minority...

  • May 31, 2011, 5:14 p.m. CST

    3D - a really mixed bag

    by impetus

    CG animation like Pixar's will always look fantastic in 3-D for an obvious reason: the cameras are virtual and can thus be easily duplicated and placed. Let's agree on one thing if nothing else: 3-D will never make a bad movie good - sorry, Rob Zemeckis. Tron 2 was probably my favorite 3-D experience. Absolutely gorgeous, engaging, and worth it because the movie was entertaining taken on in its own. On the opposite end, we have Priest. The movie was actually decent, but the 3-D was totally detrimental - a dark, hazy, eyesore. So far most 3-D stuff has been popcorn fodder - I'd like to see what visionaries like Guillermo del Toro or Terry Gilliam can accomplish wielding it with skill and imagination.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    3D works better on your home 3d tv

    by Snookeroo

  • May 31, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    It's even called "THOR 3D" in Sweden!

    by BenBraddock

    The bastards..!

  • May 31, 2011, 5:20 p.m. CST

    avatar was unimpressive

    by Bouncy X

    thats the only movie of this recent 3D fad that i've ever seen in that format. i went because it was supposed to be THE movie to see that way and yeah, it was quite a waste in regards to 3D. for the first 20 or so mins it was actually distracting as "everything" was all pop up book/viewmaster looking and then by the 30 or 40 min mark, i didnt even notice the 3D anymore since i got used to it. that sorta defeats the purpose of course. there was a trailer for Shrek 4 that was in 3D and that looked much more impressive than Avatar but i'm not surprised. CGI animation just lends itself to that. but live action movies in 3D is just beyond pointless. the only difference between 3D movies today and those from the 80s is that the "effect" is more consistant but it still looks like cardboard cutouts regardless.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:21 p.m. CST

    3D has never inhanced my moviegoing experience.

    by Yelsaeb

    If anything it has made it less enjoyable. When I see a movie or watch one at home I like to get comfortable. I can't be comfortable with glasses on my face that give me a headache. Its not even worth it in the first place. Oooh, the lasers are coming off the screen! Big woop. The future of film should be IMAX. I like IMAX a whole lot. I've never seen anything in an IMAX theater but the IMAX scenes on the Blu-ray of the Dark Knight amazed me. As much should be done with film as possible. Make the screens bigger, make the frames bigger, and shoot it at a higher fps. All that makes a movie look a whole lot better than just a hand coming off the screen.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Too dark

    by Keith

    That's the big problem. Polarization kills photons. Related: can't 3D movies just be projected more brightly, or does the physics of that not work out?

  • May 31, 2011, 5:24 p.m. CST

    My nephew and I went to Kung Fu Panda 3D

    by American Mythos

    $27 just for the friggin' tickets. It was my first 3D movie and the 3D was fantastic. My nephew is seven, and watching him stand up to grab at the screen -- and duck down when Captain American threw his shield during the trailers -- was probably more enjoyable than the film itself. But I do enjoy movies without glasses more.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    3D works better on your home 3d tv

    by Snookeroo

    Just got a big screen 3D tv; maybe it's because the lighting/image is more concentrated than in the movie theater, but I find the 3D effect is generally better. The up side: • Lots of fun if it's the right movie - particularly those that were designed with 3D in mind. • Can enhance the movie; in some cases, it can immerse you in the experience • You don't have to pay ridiculous prices for concessions, don't have to deal with cell-phones, inconsiderate slobs who talk through the whole movie, and idiots who put their smelly feet up on the back of your chair. The down side: • Mega-expensive. The tv required ain't cheap; glasses are around $150 a pair, and the movies are around $40 a pop (however you can snag them for around $25 on the first week of release). • The list of 3D Blu-ray movies available for purchase is about 20. Even Avatar is not available in a home 3D version (which I don't understand) at all).

  • May 31, 2011, 5:34 p.m. CST

    I have swimmers ear, so naturally, I say no to 3D.

    by sweeneydave

  • May 31, 2011, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Does surround sound "add to the story"?

    by Jaster

    No? Then STFU about that stupid shit! You could say the same damn thing aqbout color or aspect ratio. So let me get this straight... Nearly t peopelhat went to go see Kung Fu Panda 2 this weekend elected to pay more to see it in 3D...and that amounts "the votes being in" and 3D is a fialure? How in the fucking hell do you figure that!? If I want to see a film that has the option for 3D, I choose 3D every goddamn time, and clearly at least 45% of audiences do too! By the way, 70% of Avatar's grosses came from 3D screens, so the numbers clearly vary per film.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Sorry, my wireless keyboard crapped out for a sec...

    by Jaster

    That was supposed to be "Nearly half the people that went to Kung Fu Panda 2 this weekend elected to pay more to see it is 3D..."

  • May 31, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    and snookeroo is right by the way...

    by Jaster

    3D is WAY fucking better on home 3DTVs than it is in theaters. I mean it is fucking eye-popping at home. Don't listen to people who say stupid shit like "3D doesn't work unless it's on a 100 inch screen". That's fucking crazy. I showed a 3D movie to someone just the other night and they were gobsmacked.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Part of the problem with 3D

    by seasider

    is that it's a technology that's half a century old and there hasn't been a whole lot of advancements over the years. It went out of style years ago and now studios are under the impression that simply bringing it back with a few enhancements and shoving down moviegoers throats will make them accept it again. In the year 2011, I would've thought we'd have movies in 3D without the glasses by now. If the current trend of 3D leads to something like hologram projected movies then I hope 3D is here to stay.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Short answer, No.

    by MapMan

    3D has added nothing to any movie I have seen except the price of admission. IMHO it was unnecessary for Avatar and every other movie since. Until we get holodeck technology where the movie surrounds out with sights, sounds and smells, 3D will always be a gimmick which is noticeable and ineffective. Whereas I can get lost and immersed in a good 2D movie, 3D is distracting and pulls me out of the movie. I really wish Cameron would spend less time developing new technologies and spend more time making movies. The Abyss was as gripping and immersive as Avatar and a much better movie using primitive CGI and practical effects.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by ultragoregrind

    so i guess it's safe to assume you've also spent more hours than you'd like to admit tuning your home system, eh? heh heh (on that note - don't you hate it if you go to a theater and the sound isn't as good as home?)

  • May 31, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    N O

    by Gigol-o Joe

    3D is a gimmick - much like comic book movies. Please make them stop!! Oh, and Damn You Michael Bay!

  • May 31, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST

    3D is NOT worth it. 3D BAD! 2D GOOD!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    3D only works with realistic or exaggerated depth of field. Making layers on top of layers is NOT 3D, this is why I have yet to see a good post converted 3D movie. It's all about depth, adding a dimension. What you see from viewing from the right of the screen should be different from what you see viewing from the left of the screen. This does not occur when projected on a 2D surface, such as a screen. Viewer on the far left and the viewer on the far right see the same thing. 3D on a 2D screen should look like a window into another room. This worked somewhat on Avatar, but only for a few moments. That's a ridiculous amount of money to spend on an entire film for a few moments. Maybe the higher frame rate being used on The Hobbit can make the "window effect" work throughout the film.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" is the best use of 3-D yet

    by rev_skarekroe

    Because it's not a gimmick in this film. It's not about showing off crazy effects - it's a tool to illustrate the contours and textures of the location. None of us will ever get to visit the cave in the film, but Herzog created a way to bring us as close in as possible. While the film itself won't be interesting to those who aren't in to anthropology/archaeology/early man, the way it uses 3-D is something everyone should pay attention to.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST

    If done right there's not a better viewing experience.

    by ganymede3010

    Also, at my local theater, the longest lines are always for the 3-D version of whatever film is currently showing. And the 3-D versions are the first ones to be sold out.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:49 p.m. CST

    3D Thor

    by Fettster_uk

    When I was a kid I love 3D. Had Super 8mm copies of Creature From The Black Lagoon and even watched Spacehunter and Metalstorm in 3D. But I saw Thor and it did nothing but detract from the overall cinema experience for me. If it's a cheesey horror movie with loads of shots JUMPING out of the screen, then fine. Anything else, I'll watch in 2D from now on.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:51 p.m. CST

    Even 2D tickets are too expensive... 3D occasionally worth it

    by WillTheThrill

    The cost of only two non-matinee 2D tickets is more than it costs to buy most movies on DVD! We pay $10 in Portland, Oregon for full price tickets, and $8.50 for matinee!!! IMAX or 3D adds another $3 to $5 above those prices. Ridiculous. Including gas, maybe parking, and a coke or a popcorn, and two people could easily spend $30-45 for one movie. And the average movie costs $15-25 when it comes out on DVD. Theaters are already pricing themselves out of business, especially since so many people have huge hi-def tvs or digital projectors at home. The movie theater experience just isn't unique enough anymore to justify spending SO MUCH MONEY for a couple of tickets. The only thing unique that theaters can offer right now is 3D -- and even that is changing with the advent of, currently very expensive, 3D tvs. And the prices will start falling pretty quick. Personally, the only 3D movies I felt like I got my money's worth for were "Avatar", and a few animated films like "Up" and "Toy Story 3" and Jim Carrey's underrated "Christmas Carol". Anything else I've seen in 3D was a waste of money. I'll only see movies in 3D if they were FILMED in 3D by a director who knows what he is doing, like James Cameron, or other high quality digital animation. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my heard-earned cash. Just not worth it.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Most people are against it because we're TOLD we should like it.

    by theyreflockingthisway

    We're told we should prefer it to 2D, we're told it's the future and we're told we all need to buy 3D TVs. Why exactly? Because Avatar was a good 3D film and a success to boot? I loved the 3D on Avatar, I loved seeing Tron Legacy in 3D too but I haven't seen much else. Frankly I'm sick of it - I'll enjoy the odd film when I think it's worth seeing in 3D but, for the most of the time, I just think "oh piss off". These companies don't tell us what the future is - we tell them with our wallets. Ram it down out throats and we're just going to get sick of it all. This summer I've decided I'll see Transformers in 3D as that seems the type of film that will benefit. I'll see Harry Potter in 2D, though, as I just want to see how it all ends. I avoided both Thor and Pirates in 3D too - it just has to be the right film for it and it has to be done right.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I was forced to see Thor in 3D and it was worse than I expected. First of all yes the image was significantly darker and thus shittier. Second, the 3D did next to nothing for that movie and in fact I took the glasses off every now and then and it hardly made a difference. If something is shot in 3D it may be worth it but this conversion shit has got to stop.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST

    If 3D is supposed to make it more real

    by Knugen

    ...then no more quick editing, no more experimentation with focus etc. With 3D much of the experimentation and artful expression of the cinematography is lost in the uncanny valley of weird pointless eye raping. Hollywood needs a thunderpunch in the nads.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by superhero

    You 3-D lovers will be walking around cross eyed within ten years or so. 'Nuff said!

  • May 31, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST


    by Darth_Kaos

  • May 31, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST

    For me...

    by fastcars

    ...3-D only works for trashy spectacle films - Saw, Piranha, Jackass, Avatar. Movies where the key selling point is the visceral experience - violence, blood, puke, a trippy world. But with movies that are more about the story, I don't care about 3D. This includes spectacle films that are more about the story than your Saws and Jackasses - Lord of the Rings, the original Stars Wars trilogy, Harry Potter, etc. The selling point isn't to see holograms floating in my face. Basically, movies that are gimmicks work well for 3D. (And yeah, I consider Avatar a gimmick.) So, no, 3D will never be anything than fringe cinema, a trend that rises and falls and rises and falls. It's been like this since the 80's, and it will always be this way. The End.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Format Wars: passive vs active 3D

    by Titus05

    we need a winner before 3D can become more widespread in the home...and the home is where the 3D battle will be won, not in the movie theaters...although making 3D a niche product only available in theaters might be a better way to market 3D...makes it more of an 'event' that needs to be seen on the big screen

  • May 31, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Pirates 4 3D nearly destroyed my brain

    by Secretagentnumber6

    Seriously, it gave the worst headache and eye starin after it. Tron Legacy was great in 3D, Pirates horrible. So no 3D is not worth it in my opinion.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:21 p.m. CST

    It all comes down to the glasses

    by akirakid

    Does it cost a theater any more to project a film in 3D? Maybe initially the cost of the projector is an issue but how long after installation has it paid for itself? So, this argument goes out the window. I'm assuming if there are no 3D movies currently playing at a location that those projectors can also play 2D movies so they are dual purposed. The cost comes down to the glasses. You either get the recyclable "Ray Ban" style or you get the kind you have to return to the theater after the show. I feel that if you have to buy the glasses then there should be a surcharge: $10 for the movie and $4 for the glasses. BUT if you keep your glasses and bring them back for the next 3D movie that you see OR if the theater provides the glasses then no surcharge should be added. This would work great for all those Disney "Real D" movies as every set of glasses has that logo on them and they work for all those features. Let me tell you, I have kept all my 3D glasses as souvenirs and I now have 14 pairs. If I could have saved $4 by bringing my "Nightmare Before Christmas" glasses to see "Up", you bet your sweet Aunt Petunia I would have! It wouldn't have worked when I saw a few features in IMAX 3D or "My Bloody Valentine" because the theaters provided and wanted those glasses back. I know the cheesy paper glasses look awful but can't they make those and cut the cost of the glasses by 80%? It's all about the glasses.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Over sold

    by Rogue Trooper

    The only film I've seen where 3D enhanced my viewing experience was Avatar. I saw Toy Story in 3D and, to be honest, don't think the extra dimension brought much to the party, same goes for Up. Tron Legacy was too dark to benefit in any meaningful way from 3D (I have the same fears for the upcoming Prometheus) and films that shoehorn in 3D in post should be avoided - Alice in Wonderland being a case in point. Occasionally I've watched an animated film that I'd like to have seen in 3D - Monsters vs Aliens looked like it would have looked particularly good in 3D and maybe How to Train your dragon - but those times are rare. I'd like to see two things - a 3D effectiveness rating for films and an indication from film makers whether the film was made in 3D using fancy cameras designed for the job or whether the work was done in post production. Those two things would make my viewing decisions much easier.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    It depends - but doesn't deepen

    by Si

    Art > Technology every time 50s Creature from the Black Lagoon was ace in green/red 3d: creepy camp with bubbles in your eyeballs Cloudy and Dragon were great fun for all the family and worth the extra for a treat: clever, funny, bright and eye-popping Thor was just frustrating: dark, tough to follow the action scenes and like layered 2d - definitely my first and last conversion But, I hope audiences become wise enough to teach Hollywood it can't keep milking us with top dollar versions of (reputed) crap like Titans and Pirates.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Do it right, from the start, or don

    by jgsugden

  • May 31, 2011, 6:44 p.m. CST

    It was

    by pauduro

    when i was 7 in the 80s

  • May 31, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    I may jinx it, but anyone noticed how great this TB is?

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    Talking about films with no turbo-douchebaggery evident?

  • May 31, 2011, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Do it right, from the start, or don't do it.

    by jgsugden

    If you are going to have 3D, make it right. Avatar did it right. It really added to the film. However, I have yet to see another film where I thought the 3D made it better. I have chosen NOT to see the 3D version of many films (Thor, Pirates 4, etc...) based upon reviews. I will continue to evaluate whether a film should be seen on 3D based upon reviews... but I have little hope that there will be another film I want to see in 3D before Avatar 2.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:50 p.m. CST

    No Way! 3D = Money Grab, nothing more

    by ninpobugei

    I've seen several films in 3D and I've hated it every time (MONSTER HOUSE, AVATAR, THOR). It adds nothing to the movie-going experience, the glasses are annoying, and it's way, WAY too expensive. I've seen my last movie in 3D.</p> <p> What's more, after the huge rise in fees last September, I've pretty much stopped going to the theater for anything other than specific big-budget movies. My wife and I used to see 30 or more movies per summer. Last summer we saw a handful and this summer we will likely see precisely 4 films in the theater: THOR, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, GREEN LANTERN and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER. We *might* see COWBOYS & ALIENS, but that's about it. I much, MUCH prefer our home big screen.

  • nt

  • May 31, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST

    simple: was it shot in 3D or post production 3D?

    by awardgiver

    The Hobbit, Avatar, Tin Tin, Tron...all filmed in 3d, has and will work. Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, etc the post production crap sucks. If it wasn't filmed in 3d, I won't watch it in 3d.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST

    100% of all blind people agree

    by Turd Furgeson

    3D is useless.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Currently, NO.

    by GroolDemon

    Right now I feel that the technology is used poorly and in most cases is just a money grab. I have seen very few 3D versions of films that were really that great. Truthfully, Up and Avatar were the only two that really seemed to utilize the technology well, but it didn't make the films any better or anything, and that is my rub with it. The 3D experience isn't even really an experience. It is neat to see depth in the screen and maybe a few things that seem to be floating in front of your eyes, but, to me at least, it doesn't add anything of real benefit to the movies. Honestly, in many of the films I've seen it has actually been kind of distracting, and I find the bulky ass black glasses that my theater gives out to be quite uncomfortable. Now, I know a few years from now we'll start seeing glasses free technology and more ideas that are only being now implemented on smaller screens (Nintendo 3DS), so the glasses won't be an issue. Though, that still won't change the fact that it doesn't really add any more benefit or substance to what is already there on film, sound, and story. As well, many of the recent 3D releases I haven't even bothered to see. Rather I've settled for the 2D version. So, at least to this customer, it isn't drawing me in enough to want to pay the extra five bucks or more a ticket. It is just odd, because I really think it is neat, but that is about it. I guess it is sort of like the old blue and red 3D films my parents would go see at the drive in back in the 60's and 70's. It's cool at first, but it is getting overused and serves no real purpose. Honestly, I'd really just rather see great quality movies with engaging characters and stories at the end of the day with no strings, gimmicks, or glasses attached. End of story.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST


    by Mo_Rephus

    3D is great when done right and used for the right film. I do not believe that every single film that comes out of any studio should automatically be 3D. That's just silly. Why, for example, would someone want to see any girly flick (i.e. romantic comedy for the politically correct out there) in 3D? What would be the point? 3D should only be used for films like Tron Legacy, Green Lantern, or any future Star Trek or potential Star Wars film (not counting Lucas' attempt to cash in yet again on the originals or the prequels once they're converted). I'd love to see Prometheus in 3D, but then I'm a HUGE Alien and Ridley Scott fan. Any other films, the 3D just becomes a distraction and/or annoyance. I don't mind paying a little more to see certain films in 3D (Tron Legacy, Avatar, Prometheus), but most (Pirates 4, Thor, Titans) I have little to no interest and have no intention of paying extra for it.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:22 p.m. CST



    I don't hate it like most people here seem to. Avatar, I'd rather watch the talkative, conversation scenes in 2d and watch the action in 3d. Yes the animated movies have the best 3d effect. I saw the Rio trailer in 3d and it looked awesome. Tron was pretty cool in 3d. I think it made the action scenes better, 3d and Tron are a good companion imo. Saw Thor in 3d. The converted 3d made some scenes muddled and blurry in some areas, and yeah I think it looked a bit dark. But I thought the fight scene between Thor and Loki was brilliantly choreographed and I loved the 3d in that instance. I don't have a lot of money to burn however and in most cases I don't think it's worth the extra ticket shock.

  • It's a dumb gimmick that needs to die.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    shot in 3D = yes, converted = no

    by ar42

    To me this is like asking if you'd rather see a black and white film in the original black and white or in a colorized version. If the director intended it a certain way (i.e., was invested enough in 3D to shoot it that way from the beginning) then that's how I want to see it, otherwise fuck your money-grubbing extra charges. The dimness is also a serious problem.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:34 p.m. CST

    There are only two movies...

    by Sci-FiJunky

    ... where the 3D worked for me: 1. Avatar (IMAX 3D) 2. MegaMind (regular theater 3D) I have pretty much seen every action/sci-fi/fantasy/animated movie that has come out in 3D since Avatar, and I would have to say the 3D made it worse rather than better for the same basic reason as almost every one else... ...too dark, muddy, and blurry. As of the new Pirates movie, I am choosing the 2D version whenever I can.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:35 p.m. CST

    House of Wax

    by proevad

    re-release, early 80's. Migraine from hell. Never again am I putting on those damn glasses. If Potter and the Hobbit aren't released in 2d, guess I'm shit outta luck.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:36 p.m. CST

    3D sucks, I'll never pay almost $20 for a movie ticket again.

    by Cap'n Jack

    I saw Tron Legacy in 3D and was so disappointed. The effect was lame, it looked like a viewfinder kids toy, and it was soooo expensive. Never again. It's so overrated.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Usually, NO

    by ReportAbuse

    Rarely, yes. It should always be something special and out of the ordinary and done the right way to justify it. It worked with Avatar and Green Hornet.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:40 p.m. CST

    I've never seen a 3D movie.

    by SnootyBoots

    Yup. I'm that person who hasn't seen Avatar.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Jackass 3D

    by James

    is really the only movie that I felt 3D actually added to the experience.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    3D isn't going away...

    by Hipshot

    Because movies are just trying to imitate the way we actually perceive reality. Sound, Color, motion itself. 3-D seems like a gimmick too often, but when well done, it blends nicely. Eventually, someone will come up with a way to do it sans glasses, and down the road 2-D might well seem as quaint as black and white.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Boston Globe article about 3d films

    by Raymond Shaw

    Here's an article about cinemas not removing 3d lenses for 2d films.

  • I haven't seen it yet, but if anyone here has, I'm curious to hear opinions on Herzog's use of the technology.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Thor 3D Sweden

    by JoeSweden

    Our cinema in Gavle, Sweden got a 35 mm print of Thor when our two 3D screens where taken over by Pirates 4 3D. (Which also runs in 35 mm) It came from a smaller town where I guess they haven't gone digital yet. That's a problem in Sweden this summer as there are to many 3D movies and still too few digital screens. They are building like crazy to keep up. We will get our 3rd in June. If they don't have a 35 mm or 2d option from the start, but I guess if the screen is digital it will be in 3D, they have to have a 35mm copy in the end if they still want to show the movie when the 3D screens are taken over by the next 3D movie (every two weeks it seems like this summer). Stockholm has the most digital screens in the country so I guess Thor can be 3D it's whole cinema life there. Of the upcoming movies I know of, Green Lantern will be 3D only and Transformers 3 as well unless you live in a big city like Sthlm, Gbg, Malmö where T3 will be shown 2D as well. Or a very small city/village that hasn't gone digital yet.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    I fucking HATE 3-D. There, I said it.

    by BlueDjinn1

    Perhaps it's 'cus I have a strong nearsighted prescription, so I'm looking through one pair of glasses already. Perhaps it's 'cus I have a ridge on the bridge of my nose which makes the 3-D glasses cut into it. Perhaps it's 'cus I get a headache from more than 10 minutes of the effect--which I don't think has any connection to whether the glasses are needed or not. Whatever the reason, I hate it. Plus, while it might enhance some films, it'd be an embarrassment to others. Think about it: Schindler's List: IN 3-D!! The Accused: IN 3-D!! I'm sickened even imagining this.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:55 p.m. CST

    50's 3D

    by JoeSweden

    Can't anyone convert one of those 50´s red/green 3D movies to today's 3D standard? Them I would pay extra to see! Imagine Black Lagoon on the big screen in 3D without funky colours.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Still in its Infancy

    by Yourbigpalal83

    I think when it comes to 3D, WHEN DONE RIGHT, it adds so much more to the viewing experence, it makes a movie more like this amazing fantasy play, where the characters are in enviorments and situations not possable to us mere movie going mortals in real life, and makes us feel like we're there with the characters on the big screen. THAT SAID, hollywood is known for taking a good thing and running it into the ground just to make a few bucks! I mean, Pirates 4 sucked in 3D. It did nothing with it at all! It was just...there. Thor, i must have lucked out, because the theater i went to, the brightness was good enough where my eyes dident hurt me or i had to struggle to see what was going on. I view 3d like this. By its nature, its still just staring out. Avatar was just 2 years ago, and the tech has only slighly improved in that time. Film makers and directors are still expermenting with it, learning what it can and cant do, improving and tweaking on it. Look at a color movie from the 1950's, and then look at a color movie shot today.. Totally diffrent looking. To me, alot of the older color movies look too pastel like to me. They dont feel like real life, which is fine in and of itself. Now take, almost any film shot today, and it looks worlds better then the color stock shot in the 50's. It looks like, even with heavy visual effects, like your somewhere real, that could exists. 3D Just brings that out more, adds depth and demention and geography to the Image. The best way to view 3D is like this: Its like surround Sound, just adding a new level of immersion to the experence. Take for example, Star Wars! Weather viewing it on the big screen, an old VHS tape on a crappy 13 inch tube tv (as i did durring my childhood (was born in 1983 so i missed its theratical run) DVD, blu ray, stero, 5.1, 3D, 2D, black and white, etc....the movie in an of itself (not counting the special editions of course) Remains the same. Its the same story, same images, same settings and characters. thats what makes star wars, star wars... Now you can immerse yourself deeper into it, In HD 3D, the best 5.1 surround sound, holographic display, beam it directly into your brain, what will ADD too the experence, but it wont, nor should it CHANGE the story being told! I think 3d in the future is going to get so much better. I really do. Its constantly evolving. I just hope that it soul job is to ADD TO THE IMMERSION not become the story in and of itself!

  • May 31, 2011, 7:57 p.m. CST

    1. 2D really is 3D anyway. 2. 3D dims the image.

    by Mahaloth

    Lose it. I'm not paying for it.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Thor 3d vs Thor 2d at the drive in

    by vastikus

    Thor 3d lost and badly. Took my kids to see Thor in 3d and they found the screen too dark and kept taking off the glasses. I thought it was dark and the 3d was fun at points, but didn't add much. Then we just saw it again as feature 2 at the drive in. The movie was way better with out the 3d and way cheaper at the drive in.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:14 p.m. CST

    3d sucks, even homos hate it

    by Nabster

    It's harming cinema, IMO.

  • It's the projectionist fucking it up. The bulbs need to be replaced regularly and if they don't the3 image fades. With 2D films you may not notice as much but with 3D it's very obviouse and fucks up the experience. Then you come out saying "3D sucks!" For the record I had the same problem watching The Expendables (in 2D obviously). I had no idea what the fuck was going on in the fight at the end of the film because the bulb was too old. Also IMAX 3D does not look as good as digital projection because the image is softer. It's sharper than a traditional theater screen, but digital has it whipped. The REAL test of 3D is IN THE HOME because all those issues are removed and you can see how totally fucking amazing those 3D films really are. Once you buy a 3DTV, and you WILL, you'll become a true believer. This is just a replay of everyone whining about DVD, then Blu-ray. It's same people, o0r the same TYPE of people anyway. You'll all come around I guarentee it. 3D isn't going anywhere, that's for mother fucking sure. So you're going to have to DEAL one way or another.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Blind in one eye

    by Grumptor

    So 3D is absolutely useless to me.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST

    snookeroo, Avatar IS available for home 3D

    by film11

    But you haver to buy a Panasonic set to get it. Not sure how long the exclusive agreement lasts...but I'm sure eventually it will be available for other sets.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST

    I love 3D on my 3DS... but in the theater...


    Not so much. It cost me 30$ for 2 tix to Pirates 4 the other day and was completely not worth it. I kept wanting to take my glasses off because the movie was so dark. In my experience animated films seem to work better.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    No problem with 3D

    by robert0

    As long as there is always a less expensive 2D option.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    The only movies in 3D in the 50's were shit...

    by Jaster

    Except Creature From the Black Lagoon of course and maybe a couple of others. There certainly weren't many A pictures in 3D. This is totally different. And might I remind you that digital projection makes this round of 3D a WHOLE NEW BALLGAME. So you little scrotum suckers whining about how 3D has failed before and is doomed to fail again remind me of the pussy-faces that said "Sony failed at minidisc so Blu-ray will fail too". No fucking clue what they were talking about, same as you.

  • The idea that 3D in theaters was red/blue is a myth. At least until Freddy's Dead and Spy Kids 3D. It has ALWAYS been polarized. I should also point out that "Full HD 3D" is brand fucking new. Yes it's based on active shutter technology that's been around for quite awhile on theme park attractions but it is much more refined than that and allows for 1080p for each eye.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Won't buy a 3D TV, won't pay for a 3D ticket

    by Stormwalkers

    The sooner the percentage drops to a point where the extra $millions are not recouped by the 3D screenings the better. Cameron can go fuck himself. He is far too arrogant these days. Avatar wasn't even that good - it was okay at best. Since watching it, I have had no desire to watch it a second time and yet he thinks he has some sort of cinema authority to dictate how films will be made in the future. Some company is probably paying him millions to spruik the fucking technology. The real test will come when Titanic is released in 3D - who gives a fuck about that movie these days? Teenage girls aren't going to rush and see it for Leo anymore. It's even more inane when you realise you can just go to a Blockbuster or Netflix or whatever and rent the fucking original - then watch it on your own 52" TV at home. The end for 3D is coming. The fact that Michael Bay is doing a 3D movie should have been a sign that the writing is on the wall - if ever there was someone who had a penchant for trying to flog a dead horse it is that guy.

  • Like the lights coming on at the end of the night and you see what everyone really looks like. PS, I mentioned "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" above. I've seen it. Oddly there is one shot where the background seems to also be cut out as a vague thick border around one of the crew and thrust to the front where it should not be. Makes me suspicious that at least one shot was post-converted for some reason. Herzog had the most hilarious interview in last month's GQ magazine. Also, the only people who can't see 3D most likely have only one working eye or have no true grasp of their own senses and are talking out of their ass. Or, they maybe they have a sensory processing disorder. If you find it impossible to catch a ball, or stop your car before rear ending someone, you might have a problem.

  • Eventually 3D will be normal. It's all about greater and greater degrees of fidelity reproducing our real senses to make the narratives more and more lifelike. You can't ignore patterns of evolution that are spelled out in recent history.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    I think THE KING'S SPEECH should have been in 3-D

    by ScoobySnack

    Just sayin'.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Seriously... Thor in 3-D was awful

    by ScoobySnack

    Count me as another person who was frustrated with the glasses. They were heavy, uncomfortable and darkened the onscreen action so badly it was hard to know what was going on in a few scenes. It shocked me to see just how bright the screen was when I lifted the glasses. Based on that experience, I'm not seeing Captain America in 3-D.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:47 p.m. CST

    the Panasonic 3D Blu-ray exclusive lasts until February 2012

    by Titus05

  • May 31, 2011, 8:47 p.m. CST

    OFC it is worth it.If you disagree,then pop out one of

    by KilliK

    your two eyes,and keep seeing with only one eye for the rest of your

  • May 31, 2011, 8:56 p.m. CST

    3D makes shitty movies (Avatar) tolerable

    by Mel

    That's a fact. I own a 3D TV. I do not own a copy of Avatar...but I'll buy it when the 3D Bluray is available. And I absolutely despise the movie.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Is color or sound worth the added cost?

    by Party_Animal_IV

    Remember when films were colorized in the 80's but it looked really awful compared to films shot in color? If people shot films in black & white and then colorized them before release, lots of people would be questioning whether color films are worth it. Under those circumstance, many would say no. Studios may decide due to the backlash against colorized films, to stop producing color films altogether. Some directors would refuse to let their films be colorized after completion.

  • It's just a way to swindle us out of even more money for the bottom line, really. No more 3D for me. My kids agree.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:07 p.m. CST

    NO for many reasons

    by D o o d

    1. it's still crap 2. Even when they tell you it's being shot in 3D, it's never the whole movie being shot in 3D. It's always mostly converted! 3. it's shit 4. they still haven't sorted the issue of the darkening and desaturation of the image! 5. it's bullshit 6. most of it is converted 7. it's rubbish

  • May 31, 2011, 9:11 p.m. CST

    Alternate idea

    by xsikal

    I'd pay 3D prices (hell, IMAX prices) to go see a movie in 2D if the theater owners would guarantee no children and that noisy bastards would get their asses thrown out. As it is, I'm not going to the theater at all. Way better viewing experience at home, even on a small 2D screen.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    NO. It's a fucking gimmick and the tech has NOT evolved much.

    by Stifler's Mom

    As much as I respect Cameron's ingenuity, he was bullshitting us when he called it a game-changer. It's the same old tech, slightly improved, and forced down our throats as a new source of revenue, in response to the poor growth in Blu-Ray and DVD sales.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:17 p.m. CST

    This is VERY simple. If it was shot intentionally in 3D, "Yes". If it wasn't, "No".

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    If the director, cinematographer and editor set out to make a 3D film from the get go, then 3D is the correct choice. Good examples are few, but include "Beowulf", "Avatar" and "My Bloody Valentine 3D". I don't mind gimmick films. That can be fun. If the decision is made by the producers to transfer the film to 3D after the fact, then run as far as you can and find a 2D screening. Bad examples are plentiful, the worst being "Clash of the Titans", but many others have added nothing to the experience, like "Bolt" and "Alice in Wonderland". I see very little value in spending years transfering the "Star Wars" films into 3D for any other reason than trying to squeeze a few more million out of them. They're absolutely fine the way they are; the way they were intended to be in the first place.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Not Worth It

    by tintab

    I have a family and the price for the 3 of us is stupid ridiculous. Ripped off feelings aside, artistically, most films justify the 3D with stupid and hokey "into the camera" shots just like in the '50s! shot selection for the story's sake will likely never really need to include a POV of something being jabbed into the face of the viewer. reserve the technology for films visualized as such, otherwise 2D all the way.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:22 p.m. CST

    it has its place.. but not on every friggin movie..

    by kev8791

    i agree with the comments about it being to dark...and bulbs really have little to do with it as one poster said above. no matter the movie i see or which theater i see it in its ALWAYS too dark. i was actually pretty pissed the first time i saw avatar on blu-ray because i couldn't believe just how much i didn't see or notice seeing it in 3d in the theater. and speaking of dark..can you imagine how the next harry potter will look in 3d, those movies are pretty damn dark as it is. its ok for a few gimmicky genre flicks and pixar type stuff,maybe a few other things here and there, but its wayyyy too saturated at this point. i i dont for a second think that its in any way worth the ticket price..the movies have gotten crazy expensive over the last few years as it is. lastly, i dont really care if im at the movies, home, or watchin something on an ipad..i dont wanna have to wear some lame ass glasses to do it.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:24 p.m. CST

    OVER IT.... Avatar:bad seats, Tron: worked, Thor:dim and fuzzy

    by clarntoon

    When I saw Avatar 3D I was off to the side a bit. Not a "bad" seat normally. If you are going to charge more for 3D then you better re-imagine the seating plan so you don't screw people. Avatar kind of worked for me even at an angle, however when I saw it at home on DVD it felt the same. Tron 3D was the king of the gimmick with glasses on/off head. Entering Thor 3D i was handed some bulky glasses I'd never seen before. They kind of looked like the demo glasses at best buy with a power switch. However there was no power switch. I put them on and everything white turned a dim green. I knew this would turn out bad. During some of the later action sequences I'd close one eye just to try to get a grip. durning the later dialog scenes I would simply remove the glasses and look at the bright screen i was missing out on. "IF" the 3D is good you should soon start to simply accept it much like watching an animation. After a while it's no longer animation or 3D it just is.... and if it "just is" why pay more for it and roll the dice. I swore after Thor NEVER to see another 3D film.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    OVER IT.... Avatar:bad seats, Tron: worked, Thor:dim and fuzzy

    by clarntoon

    When I saw Avatar 3D I was off to the side a bit. Not a "bad" seat normally. If you are going to charge more for 3D then you better re-imagine the seating plan so you don't screw people. Avatar kind of worked for me even at an angle, however when I saw it at home on DVD it felt the same. Tron 3D was the king of the gimmick with glasses on/off head. Entering Thor 3D i was handed some bulky glasses I'd never seen before. They kind of looked like the demo glasses at best buy with a power switch. However there was no power switch. I put them on and everything white turned a dim green. I knew this would turn out bad. During some of the later action sequences I'd close one eye just to try to get a grip. durning the later dialog scenes I would simply remove the glasses and look at the bright screen i was missing out on. "IF" the 3D is good you should soon start to simply accept it much like watching an animation. After a while it's no longer animation or 3D it just is.... and if it "just is" why pay more for it and roll the dice. I swore after Thor NEVER to see another 3D film.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    OVER IT.... Avatar:bad seats, Tron: worked, Thor:dim and fuzzy

    by clarntoon

    When I saw Avatar 3D I was off to the side a bit. Not a "bad" seat normally. If you are going to charge more for 3D then you better re-imagine the seating plan so you don't screw people. Avatar kind of worked for me even at an angle, however when I saw it at home on DVD it felt the same. Tron 3D was the king of the gimmick with glasses on/off head. Entering Thor 3D i was handed some bulky glasses I'd never seen before. They kind of looked like the demo glasses at best buy with a power switch. However there was no power switch. I put them on and everything white turned a dim green. I knew this would turn out bad. During some of the later action sequences I'd close one eye just to try to get a grip. durning the later dialog scenes I would simply remove the glasses and look at the bright screen i was missing out on. "IF" the 3D is good you should soon start to simply accept it much like watching an animation. After a while it's no longer animation or 3D it just is.... and if it "just is" why pay more for it and roll the dice. I swore after Thor NEVER to see another 3D film.

  • BUT Surround Sound doenst add anything to the story either,but you do have in your house,at least a 5.1 DTS HOME AUDIO CINEMA,right? And you do also have a bluray player and 1080p HDTV although they dont add to the movie's story either,right? In other words,the argument that 3D doesnt add anything to the story of the movie is not only unfounded but also completely irrelevant simply because it starts from the wrong assumption: 3D's goal is not to add to the story. 3D's goal is to add to,to the enhance the fucking CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE. That's why throughout the evolution of the cinema,apart from the breakthroughs in the artistic aspect of the cinema,we also have the breakthroughs in its technical aspect: The introduction of sound,color,surround sound,better audio and film recording technology and chemical films,the use of makeup,the use of practical and special effect,the introduction and use of CGI and computers in the film production,the introduction of digital film and cameras, all the above things,through the years, have contributed with their own way and part to the endless process of bettering and even perfecting the experience and immersion to what we call The Seventh Art. And that's what the 3D tries to accomplish,to make the experience of watching movies is not trying to make the story look better. Fuck even James Cameron kept telling in his interviews even before Avatar came out,that 3D was here to enhance the experience of the movie and that he treated the story as he would have treated it in any other 2D movie.Were the 3D Haters listening to the man what he was saying,or they simply were refusing to hear those small facts? jesus And it is very irritating that people cant understand and accept this simple truth about 3D but instead,clueless as they are,they keep insisting on and repeating the same tiresome,baseless and completely wrong shit: 3D is the bad monster,the cheap gimmick who came here to steal from 2D its glory and replace the way stories are told in the movies,with its own fake style. And that's all.3D is trying to enhance the cinematic experience in the same way that color ed picture or surround sound are trying to do.Has succeeded in his goal? Well judging from the positive feedback when it is done CORRECTLY by the directors/studios,i would say yeah as a technology it really works. So to sum up 3D is not here to make movie stories look better.It is here to make the experience of the movies better.It is here to enhance the immersion of the visuals that are presented inside a movie.And as we all know cinema's artistic language is the image.So then,why we keep this hostility against a technology which tries nothing more than to enrich this visual language with what it has to offer?

  • May 31, 2011, 9:33 p.m. CST

    ohh... dirty lens-rim glasses that I could not get clean = fail

    by clarntoon

  • May 31, 2011, 9:39 p.m. CST

    I'm not typically this arrogant... but BOTTOM LINE..

    by MoffatBabies

    Sorry. This will hurt some of you. You're welcome. Converted 3d could ruin 3d. Even the good ones look somehow wrong. Animated or actual 3d is the future. I'm sure the Star Wars releases will look great. But money buys that and most will not spend what it takes (see Pirates). Look, 3d is here to stay. I've ranted and raved about this issue here multiple times and I won't go into extensive detail again (much), but you have to realize that this goes beyond mere cinema and presentation. Gaming and various forms of VR (which in it's true form demands true 3d) have been held back for years by mis-steps and bad marketing, leading to abandonment or marginalization of certain key technologies. From head-tracking , head mounted displays to retinal display tech (no, NOT Apple's bastardization of the term with its "retina display" bullshit). You have to remember that we already HAD Virtual Reality and for the most part it remained undeveloped and unimproved except for military purposes. The consumer market was abandoned due to one bad product (Nintendo's Virtual Boy) and a horridly marketed Virtual Reality "center" in various cities that failed because they could not properly convey what it was they had. Having tried it myself multiple times, even I had a hard time telling people what it was and why it was so important and yes... so entertaining. Another problem was the over-hype and unrealistic expectations back then. Magazines like Mondo2000 , and to a lesser degree Wired magazine, made people think that the 3d and the graphics back then would resemble actual reality when in fact it looked just slightly worse than the best video games of the time. This didn't diminish the true sense of PLACE and immersion that the VR conveyed, no, but it was less than was expected and not upgraded fast enough. Then the WWW arrived, attentions drifted elsewhere and people (as well as companies and investors) just left VR behind. But now, 3d is threatening to be in every theater and every home(most TVs will very soon just BE 3d ready without emphasis or fanfare). Game and SFX graphics have improved exponentially and technology is ready for investment and marketing to catch back up to be VR-ready. 3d TV and cinema is not VR, but it's a stepping stone. Already, many of my ps3 games are true 3d ready. It's just a matter of time before we get our head-mounted, head-tracking displays back and then eventually our retinal display tech. (images projected directly unto the retina, for full immersion and no peripheral cut-off, and yes it exists and is safe) If we kill off 3d because WE treat it as and ONLY apply it as a gimmick, we also kill off progress. One thing to remember is that most of the people who say it's a gimmick are the same people who would call it's NON-gimmicky application "not necessary". In other words, as soon as it's NOT used as a gimmick, people will say it "wasn't needed". I hope I conveyed that well enough. It's a contradiction. Best way to say it is... The guy who says it's only for gimmicky genre films is the same guy who would think it was a bad idea for a drama. Therefore guaranteeing it REMAINS a gimmick. Just remember that. Kind of a dumb stance in not JUST my opinion. Reasonably and critically, it's a dumb way of looking at it. Oh that's right.. that bottom line thing.. It's not a gimmick, a fad or a novelty this time. It's simply progress, like sound and color were. Most of you will get over it or embrace it. Unless you have only one eye or no depth perception, which turns out to be a lot of people. But not enough to kill 3d I'm afraid. The rest of you? Well, if you don't like 3d, pluck an eyeball out. It's the way reality looks. In other words, go pluck yourselves. And quit whining the future away for the rest of us. This bandwagoning bullshit needs to stop, especially when you consider how sharp some of the people criticizing it are. Quit letting others do your thinking for you. You're better than that. Especially the journalists and bloggers. Ungh. Sad. You're welcome again.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    and this idea that 48fps , showscan and other improvements

    by MoffatBabies

    (and 4k, 8k ).. are better improvements than 3d. Nonsense. They will make 3d better!

  • May 31, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST

    3D glasses=fail ... 3D images=win

    by ufoclub1977

    Those of you joking about "Schindler's List" in 3D or "My Dinner with Andre" are missing the point... Yes, all types of movies will be in 3D. Not just bubble gum action flicks. This reaction is just like how at first people thought only certain types of movies should be in color. Now most all are in color. Even Schindler's List has one element in color. It served the narrative. Just like 3D serves the concept of the documentary "Cave of Forgotten Dreams".

  • May 31, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST

    3D runied Drive Angry

    by Dan

    I saw the free, AICN screening of Drive Angry in Chicago. Even though it was allegedly "SHOT IN 3D!!!!" it look like garbage. It ruined the movie for me. Only a few special effects shots looked like 3D. The rest of time I was stuck watching a dark, blurry film. I avoid 3D films at all costs. If a movie I want to see is 3D I will wait for the DVD so I can actually see what's going on.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:45 p.m. CST


    by redteeb

    As it's done at the moment, I can't stand it. It just hurts my eyes too damn much. I dunno if it's the 3D itself or the dimness. I wish it was immersive, and it sounds like it should be, but the fact is the glasses do the exact opposite for me, they remove me from the viewing experience. Well, that and the slowly developing headache. It *should* be the next logical step towards real life. The problem is that it's actually incredibly artificial. It's a 2D image, and the way it's currently done your brain can spot the discrepancy, unlike motion in film. It's also incredibly bad for you to watch, as any half-decent optometrist will tell you. The reason EVERY film is coming out in 3D is cause, well, they're trying to get every theater to adopt and now they have to justify the expense. Full IMAX is way better and far more immersive. I'm willing to pay a little more for it.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    exactly my point. The people making the My Dinner With Andre jokes are the same people saying it's a gimmick. It isn't that it IS a gimmick, it's that they WANT IT to remain a gimmick.. for some weird reason. It's an idiotic contradiction.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    The 3D in Pirates was fine

    by D.Vader

    I could see everything clearly. Young eyes, I guess. It wasn't great 3D; it was fine 3D. Scenes were dark, not muddy. Growing pains. Learning curves. Filmmakers will get better, theaters will learn how to properly project as time goes on.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:49 p.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    That's the fault of shoddy projection. I've seen the difference between one cinema here that gets it wrong (headache, but not as bad as people make it out to be.. more like fatigue) and one that gets it right (bright, clear, comfortable and immersive). It's night and day.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Coraline was good...

    by greg harlin

    Don't know if anyone mentioned it, but Coraline actually used 3D as an art form without any distractions. In that case it was an actual choice be the director and not some studio mandate.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Sometimes worth it

    by solvseus

    Avatar wasn't great, but I paid the extra couple of bucks for 3D and I don't regret it. Saw it later on someone's TV and it wasn't as good. Loved the whole look of it in IMAX 3D in the theatre. Alice In Wonderland kinda sucked. It wasn't a great movie, and the 3D was obviously tacked on later. Didn't even see Clash, liked the original and heard the new one sucked. Only other thing I've seen in 3D has been Tron Legacy, and I feel the same way as I did with Avatar. Movie wasn't great, but I'm glad I saw it in 3D because it looked good. I've seen lots of other movies that had 3D options - Thor, Saw, a couple of those cartoons, was Harry Pottter?, dunno, whatever - none of them seemed like they needed to be seen that way. Already burned by Alice, no thanks. Some of them were good enough movies, some weren't, none of them felt like 3D would have added more. So to answer your question, yeah, but only sometimes.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Coraline was indeed very good.

    by MoffatBabies

    Because it was used with some restraint and an emphasis on immersion (through the screen) rather than "gotcha" gimmicks (out of the screen).

  • May 31, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    This is why I say conversions could ruin 3d for the rest of us. Your experience with Alice. But this idea that certain films "need" or do not need 3d I find a little silly. Like certain films don't really NEED color. Bah.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST

    T Burton quoted recently, he thinks it should be a choice

    by seabiscuits

    and Dark Shadows won't be in 3-D.. More power to him. Yes I think it should always be an optionm for cool movies that would be fun in 3-d.

  • May 31, 2011, 10 p.m. CST

    3d is a gimmick

    by empty_headed_animal

    It was brought back to fill empty theatre seats. Hollywood just has to make films with good stories and acting then they wouldn't need all this gimmicky stuff. Mark my words, a Sensurround comeback is just around the corner.Or smell-o-vision.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:01 p.m. CST

    I advoid 3D whenever possible

    by room23storeblogspotcom

    How to Train Your Dragon has been the only movie that I have seen (I saw Avatar in 2D) that it hasn't really sucked. I hate the extra price, and with my vision issues I hate having to put the glasses over my own glasses and the dimmness of the picture. I'm curious though with the new Nintendo 3DS and its non glasses 3D if that might be somehow applied eventually to the movie theaters? That might be worth it. But ether way it all just seems like a gimick. As others have said already make the moviemakers focus on good storytelling rather then the gimicks. Let the story dictate what type of medium to use.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Is 3D Worth A Talkback Discussion?!

    by ProziumJunkie


  • May 31, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    Good name. Appropriate.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    I prefer IMAX over 3D

    by Titus05

    movies filmed with IMAX cameras are 100 times more immersive then the best 3D...but like 3D, IMAX is being watered down by upconversion which ruins the experience...Dark Knight and bits of Revenge of the Fallen were stunning in IMAX because they were filmed with IMAX cameras...I wish more directors would choose IMAX...imagine an entire movie filmed with IMAX cameras!!...drool!!

  • May 31, 2011, 10:04 p.m. CST

    room23... 3d isn't a medium

    by MoffatBabies

    it's a technology applied to existing mediums. Like color and sound. But they used to argue over which films "needed" to be in color too. It'll pass.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST

    I prefer 2D, but..

    by Spyhunter

    I vastly prefer "digital" 2D, which we rarely get around here (Cinemark), over regular 2D. Nice smooth framerate, not jumpy and no image noise. Usually the only way to get that is to watch the 3D version, but if the reviews say the 3D is horrible I'll just watch the regular 2D or wait for a home release a few months later.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    redzonecuba - reuse your glasses

    by Rupee88

    Dude...just buy a ticket for a regular 2D movies with your 3D glasses from a previous film in your pocket and sneak into the 3D movie of your choice....not that difficult in most cases and save $3 or $4

  • May 31, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Another common thing..

    by MoffatBabies

    I'll talk to people who say that 3d just "sucks" and then I ask which films they've seen... did you see Avatar? (nah, skipped it in 3d). Did you see Clash of The Titans? (yeah.. it sucked) Well, what do you expect?

  • May 31, 2011, 10:09 p.m. CST

    3D is fine for animated movies

    by James_Camera_On

    It can be integrated naturally with the stylized worlds of animation and enhance them (e.g., "Desicable Me," "Toy Story 3D," many others). For live action movies (unless it's porn, and yes I'm serious), no. Too expensive, too much of a distraction, pointless. Make it go away. Would "Ghostbusters" have been better in 3-D? No, though admittedly, it might not have been affected either way.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:12 p.m. CST

    And Beowulf 3d rocked

    by Rupee88

  • May 31, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Technology has to develop more.

    by crimsoncinder

    Higher resolutions such as 2160p will help 3d in the long run and studios not making it a Gimmick shit fest will help as well. Avatar was top notch in using 3d to immerse you as part of the action. I felt like I was in the mech going to battle and staring into the rear view mirror with Duke Nukem. But unfortunately for every Avatar we have Pirates, clash of the titans, saw, 20 other titles I'm trying to forget. Not sure how to help them improve quality though other then not spend any money on 3d movies. \shrug.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    The 'everything must be 3D' needs to go

    by Charlie

    If the director and studio have a reason for something to be 3D and want to work to make it good, fine. I just think the whole, oh everything 3D is wrong. Look at this summer. Fast Five wasn't hurt at all from being 3D. X-Men First Class will be the best comic book film and isn't 3D and it won't be hurt at all at the box office because of that. Forcing Michael Bay to change his style for 3D is just silly.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Most people bitching about 3D dont know anything about it

    by Billy_D_Williams

    im tired of talking about this most people who hate 3D are usually just having a knee jerk visceral reaction because it's something that interrupts their normal viewing habits, they're not even educated about what they're complaining about, like most sheep minded ignorant consumers. like every advancement in technology, there were always the early days where it wasn't quite up to snuff and people were bitching and doesn't help that most 3D films are shot in a gimmicky way, with shit flying at the audience like some amusement park ride...the primary function of 3D is to IMMERSE the audience further into the film, which Cameron pulled off fairly well in Avatar...The Hobbit being shot and projected at native 48fps should accelerate this process, as many of the problems of 3D (headaches, eye strain, choppy images) can be boiled down to the frame rate being too low to properly capture stereoscopic images. we hear the world in 3D, so the natural step up from stereo was surround...nobody's bitching about that. we view the world in 3D, so the next step is naturally 3D viewing. should every movie be in 3D right now? NO. but eventually every movie will probably be shot and projected that way in the next 20 years or so...there's nothing you can do about it, so you might as well get used to it. i do agree though that the technology will not be acceptable until they get rid of the glasses, which is supposed to be 5 or so years down the line.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:19 p.m. CST

    I think 3D is just another movie trick.

    by DementedCaver

    ....much like the addition of sound, color, and widescreen options. With a good story and editing all these other additions are rather superfluous. Absolutely, Metropolis and Nosferatu are true works of art...but I've enjoyed the advances in the technology of cinema through the years. I see 3D as no different as any of the other advances in the medium...and I embrace it fully. I hope that it continues to improve and that it just becomes the standard.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:29 p.m. CST

    amen billy_d

    by MoffatBabies

    I'm gonna pop open a crisp, fresh malt liquor in your honor.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Every few years the industry trots out an "Innovation" in Cinema...

    by conspiracy

    Anyone here old enough to remember "sensurround"? This too shall pass...

  • May 31, 2011, 10:48 p.m. CST

    3D is a novelty

    by BigTuna

    It's great the first time, not quite as impressive the second time (Yet still very good), by the 3rd time it's "MEH". So no, it's not worth it other than for event films like "Avatar".

  • May 31, 2011, 10:49 p.m. CST

    TRON 3D

    by james_cameron_raped_my_childhood

    I thought it was superb, totally immersive. But Thor was pointless, didn't add anything, same for Alice in Wonderland.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST


    by darth_hideous Looks like the Cloverfield monster to me...

  • May 31, 2011, 10:54 p.m. CST

    It's "no" for me until they ditch the glasses

    by Inexplicable_Nuclear_Balls

    As the tech stands today, the whole B&W-to-color/silent-to-sound comparison is faulty. Those advancements didn't require the viewer to do anything or to adapt to them... there were no Color Glasses or Soundphones to struggle with, nothing that could potentially cause someone a physical headache. 3D will only be universally accepted when we can sit down in the theater and it's just there. Doesn't have to be holodeck quality, but there's gotta be another level of advancement beyond where we are right now.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:55 p.m. CST

    My first 3D (Avatar)

    by Jack Witek

    I went to see a movie in 3D once, that was Avatar. Thankfully, I saw it in "regular" 2D first, and then 3D on the second viewing. I was SHOCKED at how much was lost. I had no idea. I mean, the pixelation-type degradation of the lowered resolution. I was shocked at just how dark every single scene was, though some worse than others of course. I wanted to walk out, but I was there with family. And the kicker being, that this was both the most hyped film visually in history, and the most hyped 3D tent-pole event, too. But simply, the technology wasn't there. And even IF none of the degradation had been there, I still would not have enjoyed that particular film as much as I did when I first saw it, in pristine, pure, virginal 2D. I avoid 3D like the plague, after that first experience. If all major releases become 3D only, I will stop paying to see major releases, sadly. On the other hand, for some films, like Kung Fu Panda, yeah, I grant that 3D is probably the way to go. I'm not saying 3D cannot work, I'm saying in my experience with Avatar, it sunk like the Titanic (pun intended).

  • just some very good buzz. A throwback film while still being it's own thing is what I'm seeing on twitter and other sites. So...from the Looks of this early buzz...maybe JJ really can direct a quality film when teamed with people who can actually write a decent story.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:57 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    Then yeah it's worf it.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Darth...JJ's monsters all have that fleshy, somewhat Vaginal look.

    by conspiracy

    Cloverfield, Trek, this....all kinda gooey, fleshy, lot of folds and flaps and ridges, and violent. Yep...very vaginal.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Once They Lose The Glasses...

    by Real Deal

    They'll really have something. Is 3D here to stay? Yes this time I believe so. However it's still in it's infancy. Glasses for home use cost $150.00 a pop. That means if you have just two people watching a film in your home it'll cost $300.00! And what if they get broken? However there are several companies working on a no glasses approach and you can probably expect it to hit the market in about 2 years. As to just films in the theater As I've said it's still in it's infancy. Directors will learn what makes a film better in 3 D and what doesn't. Avatar was a really good movie in 3D because after a while you kind of forgot you were watching it in 3D. It helped put you in the story. You had a sense it was all happening around you.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:10 p.m. CST

    billy_d and the whole "innovation" thing

    by mrgray

    The primary, all-important difference from a purely financial POV is that when sound and color were introduced to film, we weren't given the OPTION to view the film without sound or color. And nobody charged more to see the movie with sound or color. The price of a ticket may have increased generally, but the film either did or didn't exist with sound/color. This is to say nothing of the narrative practicality of 3D technology. Color I'll give you because it doesn't particularly affect the narrative. It can be used for identification or for visual metaphor, but those are weak justifications. Sound, on the other hand, was HUGELY influential on narrative film. Can you justify 3D in relation to the narrative? At best, some have argued that it increases the viewer's ability to immerse him/herself in the reality of the narrative's world. But I say that's pretty weak considering the ever-present glasses, the limitations of screen dimension (have you seen a 3D object hit the edges of the screen?), the dimming of the image, etc. Until 3D can be justified as more than visual flair, I will continue to view film in 2D.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:13 p.m. CST

    My glasses are fogged

    by Matthew

    I can't stand the new 3d! It's worthless unless it's a big budget special effects.. in fact I won't waste money on blu-ray for a talkie thick drama..Personally I'd like to see a 3-d spectacular of lady gaga and the blueman group in a theater concert!

  • May 31, 2011, 11:16 p.m. CST

    Not an enhancement

    by SteveasaurusRex

    It seems like the one movie everyone agrees that Avatar used 3D well, but I saw it in 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D, and it was most enjoyable for me in 2D. I also wear glasses, so the 3D ones are uncomfortable and i think they're not close enough to my face for the 3D to work right. I just feel like I lose out on a lot of detail with 3D, its easier to take in the whole picture in 2D. I dunno if anyone else feels this way but I feel like 3D take away from a movie.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST


    by D Jones

    Until it is done without glasses forget it ,for myself it gives me a headache and so 3D is a no go.

  • IMO. Quality is better - no stupid glasses - and lets be honest, most 3-D sucks. I plan on seeing Green Lantern in 2-D cause I care about the story, not shit popping out at me. Movies that are shot in 3-D are maybe worth it - maybe.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Don't really care

    by hallowscorp

    It's not that I think it can't be used well (Coraline, Alice in Wonderland), but, in classical cinematic terms, a moving camera + selective focus gives me all the sense of dimensions I will ever need. The idea that eventually EVERY motion picture will be in 3D and EVERY tv will be 3D is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. Also, a turd in 3D is still a turd.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:28 p.m. CST

    DBOX DBOX DBOX is the way to see a movie!

    by Particularly Hard Vato

    3d sucks. D-Box motion seats are the way to experience a movie.

  • All this talk on here about this or that movie is the same no matter how it is shown or viewed is BS. Yes, a film shown in 2D or 3D will still have the same plot, but the presentation is different. Presentation is an important part of telling a story in a visual medium like film. Otherwise, why would directors care about lenses, depth of field, costumes, how and actor looks, sets, camera movement, aspect ratio, 2D, 3D, sound, score, color vs. black & white, digital grading/color timing, special effects, various film stocks, digital vs. analogue film, etc...? Saying that 2D vs. 3D for any given film doesn't matter, the film is still the same, this is like saying all the stuff I listed above is irrelevant to cinematic storytelling. Might as well just say we don't need films, as it is easier and cheaper to for filmmakers to just write a novel instead. Its all words in the end, and we can just picture what they are describing in our heads. Film is primarily a visual medium. Creative choices made by a director in regards to a film's visual qualities and presentation are extremely important decisions that need to be made along the path a film takes from initial idea to the silver screen.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:45 p.m. CST

    Conversions need to be banned or clearly labeled...

    by SG7

    If I'm going to pay a premium for 3D, I want actuall shot in stereo by people who know WTF they are doing. Not some after the fact digital hack job. 3D conversions are SHIT.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:47 p.m. CST

    What talk-backer lv_426 said...

    by Jack Witek


  • May 31, 2011, 11:48 p.m. CST

    I despise 3D

    by Smartacus

    It adds nothing to the experience as far as I'm concerned. To me it seems like just when theaters were truly putting a beautiful, sharp, digital image up there this shit gimmick appears and now I'm being asked to go into a theater and watch something that basically leaves much of the screen a dark, blurry mess so that something exactly in the middle can appear to stick out at me. This doesn't in the least bit interest me. I won't pay for 3D anymore. It needs to go away.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:50 p.m. CST

    3D IMAX is definitely worth it!

    by Zardoz

    I've loved every film I've seen in that format, no question. Avatar, Tron Legacy, Harry Potter series, How to Train Your Dragon, Monsters vs Aliens, Toy Story 3 were all brilliant in IMAX 3D. In fact, I don't think I've seen many 3D films outside of IMAX. So for me, it is worth it. If it's animated, shot in 3D and in IMAX.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:57 p.m. CST


    by lv_426

    "It's not a gimmick, a fad or a novelty this time. It's simply progress, like sound and color were. Most of you will get over it or embrace it. Unless you have only one eye or no depth perception, which turns out to be a lot of people. But not enough to kill 3d I'm afraid. The rest of you? Well, if you don't like 3d, pluck an eyeball out. It's the way reality looks. In other words, go pluck yourselves." Perhaps this is what they meant when they said Avatar would fuck your eyeballs out?

  • And who doesn't love the disgusting, oily glasses on their face?

  • June 1, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST


    by Doctor_Strangepork

    3D amounts to a one-two punch of Hollywood Culture Damage. 1. It gouges customers for even more money so millionaire producers can greeenlight overpriced sequels to movies that weren't that good to begin with. and 2. It's infantilizes the audience. It's bad enough that Hollywood movies are made for the widest possible PG-13 planetary audience, devoid of any artistic merit or vision, but 3D is a genre within itself. It makes for a single kind of movie experience. Film can be so much more than a dumb fireworks display. It's about subtlety, light and shadow, emotion. 3D films (Cave of Forgotten Dreams aside) create mood and depth in post-production, formatted by someone other than the director. Some computer stooge makes the decisions of what goes into the background, middle and foreground. These are BIG DECISIONS that inform how we engage with the film. It's mostly about conning ignorant people (mostly parents desperate for two hours of quiet) to spend upwards of 60 bucks on corporate bullshit.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:17 a.m. CST


    by Super Nintendo Chalmers

    This comment is from rise_of_fett, but I see it everywhere: "This is just a replay of everyone whining about DVD, then Blu-ray. It's same people, o0r the same TYPE of people anyway. You'll all come around I guarentee it." This is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. Not even fucking close. A stupid gimmick where shit needlessly pops out at you is not the same thing as widespread widescreen and higher resolutions. Now if you like it, fine. 3D movies are, for the most part, silly things anyway and if you like dark, blurry nonsense then more power to you. But to say that 3D is the next evolution in film, well then you are just fucking stupid. Call me when they start converting Picassos because people just can't be restrained by two dimensions and I will gladly punch myself in the face in penance. This problem is shared by those who freaked when Ebert said that video games can't be art. Just enjoy your fucking game. 3D is a gimmick, but so what? Just enjoy it and stop trying to inflate it to more than it is.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:19 a.m. CST

    One other opinion

    by Vindibudd

    "We have come to the conclusion that just because syrup is awesome on pancakes, it doesn't mean that syrup is awesome on Oprah's bare ass."

  • June 1, 2011, 12:22 a.m. CST


    by Super Nintendo Chalmers

    We have 3D snobs now? Seriously? So people who don't like 3D, "they're not even educated about what they're complaining about, like most sheep minded ignorant consumers." You have got to be fucking kidding me.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Those who say 3D will die off

    by lv_426

    are deluding themselves. 3D will continue to improve technically, both in the cinema and for home viewing purposes. The 3D capable HD displays will get better and cheaper over the next few years until they'll all pretty much be 3D, just like how they all have that wacky 120hz type of option these days. Of course, the 3D capability is and will continue to be an option. TV sets will still be able to display a standard old 2D image. Same with 3D Blu-ray players. They'll eventually level out in price with the non-3D players. Remember, when Blu-ray players were first released in 2006, they cost about a grand, were bulkier, and took forever to load a disc. 3D Blu-ray players, even when the first ones came out were not even close to as expensive as the first models of Blu-ray players from 4-5 years ago. As for 3D Blu-ray discs, those are already here. Just look at all the newer movies like Tron Legacy. For a few bucks more you can buy the version that comes with the 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, extra features disc, a DVD copy, plus a digital copy. They've pretty much got this angle covered. Then there are 3D video games. The PS3 is already 3D capable. Nintendo is going to be releasing their WiiHD in the next year or so, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had 3D capabilities. Actually, I'd be shocked if it didn't have 3D capabilities. Not too long after that, probably in 2012 or 2013 we'll be hearing about or seeing the next gen Xbox and Playstation consoles that will undoubtedly feature 3D in a big way. By then, a ton more games will have a 3D option as well. Broadcast and digital cable will also start offering more in 3D as well in the next 2-3 years. Eventually, a big event type series will be shot and shown in 3D for those who have the ability to view it that way. This will probably spur on more 3D in television. Eventually a network that makes good shows, think HBO or AMC, will produce a new series shot and aired in 3D, and if it gets critical acclaim, will have turned the tide in TV land towards 3D adoption. Yes a few classic films will get the 3D conversion treatment, but overall most old films will be shown on disc and on cable/TV in their native 2D formats. The nice thing is it is not like a 3D capable display won't be able to also show 2D material too. It is not like it is one or the other. Then don't count out phones. If the Nintendo 3DS is possible, you can surely bet that Apple and all the other smart phone and tablet manufacturers are cooking up ways to do 3D on their future devices. And don't forget, we will eventually have glasses-free 3D televisions as well. The last CES show had some prototype models. I would bet by the end of the decade at the latest, we'll be seeing a decent range of options for 3D without the glasses, at least in terms of 3D for home viewing. This issue of 3D glasses making us look dorky will be null by the time augmented reality shades become the hot new tech trend in place of today's smart phones and tablet computers. Then it will actually be cool to wear glasses whether we are out in public or watching a movie at home or in a theater. Don't forget the fact that a lot of the young whipper snappers of the present day will have grown up with 3D glasses being a completely normal part of watching a movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:56 a.m. CST

    MY BLOODY VALENTINE (remake)...

    by sickerandsweeter

    ...was still the best 3D movie I ever saw. It was the first and best. If you make a 3D movie GIVE ME every 3D gimmick possible! If I'm seeing a movie in 3D I don't care about story as long as there's a bunch of shit coming at me and I'm freaking having a ball!

  • June 1, 2011, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Walmart has 42 Vizio 3-D TV for $750!!!

    by ganymede3010

    And all of the reviews I've read about it are 5 stars. Kinda hard to believe when they were 3k just 2 years ago. I'm really close to picking one up, the only problem is there's not enough commercial 3-D content to justify the upgrade.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:15 a.m. CST

    super nintendo chalmers...

    by ufoclub1977

    You realize 3D is how you see everything with your eyes normally don't you? It's not about stuff popping out. It's about reality as we perceive it being in 3 dimensions, just like color, just like stereo created more lifelike dimension in sound. Things like blu-ray or HD video signals are only developments that are letting consumer VIDEO approach apparent film resolution which has been standard since the advent of 35mm film projection (the 1920's?). So I think you're a bit off in your estimation and ranking of exhibition/recording technology. It's kind of like when consumer color tv's came out AFTER movies had commonly been color for decades. Right now, just like color was rough early on, the 3D technology is cumbersome and hurts in some ways. But I guarantee the slow moving "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" makes a lot more impact as a documentary in 3D.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Hollywood 3D fail

    by The Angriest Planet

    Why is it that Hollywood ALWAYS learns the wrong lessons from everything? They look at the AVATAR phenomenon and all they see is "Gee...people will pay 50% MORE FOR 3D!!!! Holy crap!!!! Let's make everything 3D!!!" Nothing about the uniqueness of vison or story or whatever made AVATAR what it was besides just being in 3D. Really...for certain cinematic experiences things like 3D or IMAX can create a more interestingand why they will keep killing their golden goose until all we're left with is homemade vids on youtu experience but its not the be all and end all and it certainly isn't what the people want ALL the fucking time. But entertainment giving people what they want and what the companies want them to want are always different things. It'l take a lot of bombs to change their thinking on this one. And even then their reasons for backing away from 3D won't be based on anything resembling reality.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:22 a.m. CST

    My Bloody Valentine remake

    by The Angriest Planet

    I agree with the guy above...the MBV 3D remake was fun. That sort of thing works with 3D. But it also proves that 3D is mostly just a gimmick. It's not like the King's Speach would benefit from it.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Never seen a 3D movie

    by kingoflight

    I don't mind the idea, don't get me wrong, spending two hours watching a movie in 3D cool no problem. The annoyance is when they push it into the retail market so heavily and i will NEVER buy a 3D Tv even if they stop making TV's in 2D i'll stop buying Tv's Fuck having those things on to watch TV.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:29 a.m. CST

    Addressing a few things...

    by MoffatBabies

    1. The headaches. I've experienced it, and it's more like fatigue, not a real headache. But that was ONLY because the image was too dim and there was unacceptable flicker. Fault of the theater and projection equipment. You guys need to find a good cinema in your area and try again. This is NOT the norm. 2. Dark image, blur. Again, not always the case. If you've seen a 3d film and it was blurry, dark or had a lot of flicker and made your eyes feel fatigued during or after, you're missing out. Give it another chance, but not in the same place. 3. TONS of people are using Clash , Thor, Alice as examples of why this is crappy and will be a fad that fades away (as it has in the past). Although the conversions for Thor and Alice were not horrible... they were still CONVERSIONS... which in my opinion should NEVER be done. Shoot it in 3d, show it in 3d. Shoot it in 2d... show it in 2d!!! 4. Resolution and frame rate. The resolution improvements are NOT going to be a doubling of the home theatre standard of 1080. On the contrary, it will be 8K, which is actually, I believe double 4K which is 4096x2160. That's significantly higher res than 1080. At the higher frame rates combined with the higher resolutions, people have reported back that they had a sense that what they were watching had actually been in 3d. (of course many people don' know what they're looking for because they have never actually seen a 3d reproduction) I can attest to this after seeing a showscan (65mm FILM at 60FPS) presentation. It was outstanding and breathtaking. I did get the sense that what I was seeing was like looking through a window rather than looking at a screen. And that was FILM. The FPS improvement will make a HUGE difference for 3d. Adding 3d to an 8k presentation, with strong light source (which many theaters do not do properly right now) and even 48FPS will eliminate ALL the problems associated with headaches, fatigue, blurriness, flicker, etc. 5. lv_426 - Perhaps. lol. 6. Some links to better inform us all regarding resolution, showscan, formats, etc... Image Resolution: Digital Cinema: Showscan: A Video Podcast that goes into A LOT of detail regarding 3d presentation, different technologies. A smorgasbord of info!! Home Theater Geeks. 4 episodes that I found very informative relating to 3d: A couple of these episodes go into extreme detail and geekiness. Be prepared and patient. Oh and this one covering projection: 7. 3D is NOT a genre, as much as you'd like to make it so... for whatever your reasons are... very odd. I'll say it again... The people who call it a gimmick are the same people who would laugh at it's NON-GIMMICK application. There's something wrong with that logic folks. It's what we technical people call REVEALING. People with this attitude have either an agenda, general hatred of change, or cannot experience the effect and it makes them angry. They don't want it to be anything but a gimmick, but the truth is... we just have not seen 3d used for anything but genre films. There's absolutely nothing stopping an auteur from being the first to use it to simply enhance a dramatic, well-shot film. 8. "But it doesn't ADD anything." Okay. Neither does color. And you know I'm right about this one. Color doesn't ADD anything to a film like... There Will Be Blood. It could have been just as powerful in B&W. Of course we'd never know what color would add if it was shot in B&W, but it could be said that what color added to that film... 3d could have as well. Immersion and a better representation of reality doesn't HAVE to add to any aspect of the story or the characters for it to be worthwhile. Stereo or surround sound isn't needed for a drama either, but it's used. This kind of logic makes me wonder if you'd all rather just watch minimalist plays shot with single cameras. I'm reminded of the 90s, back when Jethros and Firebird driving crankheads used to say that "rap isn't music". Well, the truth is, it never HAD TO BE. It was what it was. And is. Might not like much of it, but the argument that it's "not music" is idiotic. No-one said it needed to be. Just like 3d doesn't have to ADD to the story, nor does sound or color. Almost every story ever told could be told in B&W with subtitles and text cards. But why not? Because these technologies better represent reality, and when done well, hightens reality without being over-used. There will be bad films that use bad musical scores, bad films that use badly designed sets made worse by their being shot in color as well as bad films shot in 3d, badly shot technically with a bad story and crappy 3d gimmicks. But you people have to start realizing the differences and recognizing them. It's a new technology, as it is now, since it's been so vastly improved in recent years. We will get our Spielbergs and Lucases soon, trust me. And they will use the 3d to enhance the recreation or "hightening" (spelling?) of reality without inducing groans from the audience. Without calling attention to the 3d itself. And without NEEDING it. In my first viewing of Avatar, I was lucky enough to see it presented nearly perfectly, bright.. no flicker, no blur, no fatigue. After a while I forgot I was watching in 3d and just felt IN the world and the story (as simple as it was). Watching Thor and Alice (conversions, partly and less noticeably with Thor) I never forgot that I was watching a 3d presentation. Watching Toy Story 3... same thing.. forgot it was 3d after a while. UP? Same. Coraline? Same. Clash of The Titans? Holy crap! Worse 3d ever. The era of flat entertainment is nearly over, and some people will simply kick and scream as they did with digital presentation and effects (some still do) until it becomes nostalgia. But with all of these animated 3d films being as popular as they are, there's a whole generation of kids that will grow up expecting 3d. And nothing is going to change that. Once you've lost flat, you never go back. And you'll be very thankful for this change when you strap on your head-gear and have sex in your own personal holodeck with a photorealistic harem. Or pay a few bucks to operate telepresence to walk around on Mars for a while. Or swim in parts of the ocean where you'd be crushed in reality. Or simply fly. All these things will emerge from the technology and culture being developed and promoted right now. And you'd do well to appreciate it rather than shit all over it. Maybe my opinion, but you're welcome anyway.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:35 a.m. CST

    No it is not worth it, and it takes you out of the movie

    by tjrmusic

    I did the 3D thing once and will not do it again

  • June 1, 2011, 1:39 a.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    Which film?

  • June 1, 2011, 2:02 a.m. CST


    by theplant


  • June 1, 2011, 2:02 a.m. CST


    by batmans_pants

    I have no great love for 3D. Aside from Avatar, which was filmed in 3D, I have yet to see a film that benefitted from this tech in any way. 2D for me every time. Interesting to see that at my local multiplex they had 3 screens running the 2D version of POTC4 and only one in 3D. You do have to pay £1.50 for your 3D glasses there, but you take em home and can use them again without additional charge. The 3D ticket prices are still higher mind you.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:06 a.m. CST

    by Nathaniel Scott

    I'm a fan. Unless it DETRACTS (Clash, Priest) I opt for it. For people on the fence or opposed I certainly don't recommend Thor in 3D, as it only adds a bit of depth in Asgard but I still opted for it (twice), and I don't want them to resent the experience/cost. But I dug it. Dug it in Pirates 4 and Kung Fu Panda 2 also (looking forward to Green Lantern as animation works so well generally, and it's very animated seeming). I upgraded my 37" LCD for a 50" plasma 3D hdtv and 6 pairs of active glasses when I heard Hobbit was being shot in native 3D. (With some buying and selling, it ended up being an even exchange). I've enjoyed quite a few films at home, and really looking forward to this year's offerings when they come out on blu. It shouldn't hurt that passive 3D sets are now in the $600-900 range and you can re-use theater glasses instead of the expensive ones. For me, I guess it helps that the cheap theater near me only has a $2 upcharge and I like supporting that local theater chain anyway. ($7 or 8 evening first-run shows instead of $5 or $6) And the best IMAX screens near me are old-school one-movie at a time IMAX movies and 3D is only a little extra there too. Seeing 3D on the very biggest IMAX screen in my area is the same price as going to an evening 2D show at the local Showcase Cinemas, so it's a no-brainer for me. I'm happy that there are options out there, and I hope that crappy conversions don't keep up as I hate the negative rap they encourage regarding 3D among many of my friends. I want it used correctly for animated films and great sci fi/superhero stuff for depth and scope (though I don't hate pop-out either). I'm fine with it becoming more of a niche thing. I see it as a half-way step to holo-graph type entertainment anyway.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Also, those of us who have "real" IMAX-3D are spoiled.

    by ganymede3010

    You have to remember that most of these 3-D haters never had the pleasure of seeing Avatar in a 3-D IMAX Theater, or an X-D Theater like we have in the Bay Area. Once you do, movie's just aren't the same without it IMO. I can't wait to see TF3 and Green Lantern in IMAX or X-D, plan on seeing them in both.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:09 a.m. CST

    I agree with whoever said that it takes you out of the movie

    by Titus05

    when watching 3D you're always looking for the 'cool' 3D effects and marveling at the 'depth' of the image instead of concentrating on the story and characters

  • June 1, 2011, 2:21 a.m. CST

    I also agree with whoever said that it takes you out of the movie



  • June 1, 2011, 2:54 a.m. CST

    There's nothing wrong with 2D.

    by Ecto-1

    I've watched a few films in 3D, not many because depending on how strong the 3D is it can really hurt my eyes and give me a bad headache. However, it's all a bit pointless to me. Even if it didn't hurt my eyes more often than not, there really wasn't anything wrong with 2D. I remember James Cameron saying that in order to keep audiences going to cinemas, they had to be getting something that they couldn't get at home on their HD TV's and surround systems etc. So, in his opinion, 3D was the answer. But now, within a year, people can have a HD 3D TV in their homes... There really was nothing wrong with 2D. A great film is a great film, regardless if it is in 2D or 3D. Personally, given the choice, I will always opt for watching something in 2D. And if 3D eventually becomes the only format to watch films in at a cinema, then I guess I won't be going to the cinema any more. It's also too damn expensive. 3D has given cinemas an excuse to hike up the ticket prices. Plus, in the UK some cinemas do special over 18 shows of films which cost extra, and if the cinema has a VIP seating section, that costs extra too. So, if you want to go see a flick for an over 18 show, sit in the VIP section, and watch it in 3D, then you better sell a kidney! And then imagine if the film turns out to be a load of crap... It's all a total rip-off. No more gimmicks Hollywood, just make better quality films.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:55 a.m. CST

    3 things to fix and keep 3d viable.

    by Lord Elric

    Would help to cement 3d as a viable option: 1.) It's time to get rid of the surcharge. Never paid one when I saw 3d movies as kid and , the glasses,other then having plastic frames instead of cardboard, are exactly the same. I actually find it arrogant of theaters to ask me to give back, as in recycle, something I've paid for. 2.) Brightness BRIGHTness BRIGHTNESS!!!! For God's sake, you spend thousands of dollars on digital projectors then lowball things with cheap bulbs and undertrained staff. Now, I'm a bit lucky in that I have a local venue who's on the ball when I mention something. That' There is NO excuse for these dim images. None. Nada. Nein. Studios need to ream these guys a big one on this. Or...studios should think about supplying brighter prints for 3d venues. Just in case. I saw KING FU PANDA 2 on a Dolby 3d screen, and it looked dim, flat, with no pop at all. Nothing like what I head about it. I wonder how many other people had the same experience? 3.) Speaking of pop..JFC..would someone PLEASE take a course in how to shoot 3d that's ENJOYABLE? This nonsense about depth is just that. ANY well shot film already has great depth. 3d is about immersiveness. And it's also about seeing something beyond the screen. Also in front of it. HAVE...SOME...FUN. Please, for feck's sake. This is a big complaint I hear from paying customers, that nothing comes out of the screen, hence, no joy. They're not experiencing the depth, either. PIRATES should have been a great 3d movie. But they hired someone who knew nothing abut how to work with it. And it's not the only 3d release to suffer from these decisions. There ya go. Fix these 3 issues, and I'm sure 3d will be here to stay. Do nothing, and watch it sink. Again. For the same reasons except the dimness, which is a new issue. Again.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:05 a.m. CST

    3D isn't worth it.

    by eveelcapitalist

    First, let me say thanks to Nordling, this is an excellent conversation to be had. It's quite needed, really. No, 3D is just a way for the studios to make a quick buck. It's never done anything for me and most of my friends, who are suckers and fall for it every time, usually say that it doesn't make much difference. You know why? Because no filmmaker in his right mind will make a movie for the purpose of a cheap gimmick. JJ Abrams said something in this regard and cited some Friday The 13th movie done in 3D. Hell, I remember seeing Jaws 3D like a million times when I was a kid, not once in 3D. But the movie is filled with ridiculous shots meant for 3D that drain whatever life the movie had right out. Every movie you see, 3D or no, will be shot like a standard movie. The directors and cinematogrophers will essentially ignore it every single time. They're going to want to create films that stand the test of time and independent of gimmickry. So when you see a 3D movie, it's a crapshoot. If a movie has lots of shots with depth, it'll be notable. If not, it's just going to be lame. There was one 3D movie, however, that I will admit was great. Coraline. Yes, it was handled remarkably well and added depth the viewing experience. When the main character, Coraline, is in the real world, everything is bland and dull. When she steps into the other world, everything pops with incredible vibrancy and feels much more alive. Very, very well done. I've seen a few 3D movies since, Avatar included, and was never impressed. But the movie studios love it. With the investment of a few million more dollars, they can jack up ticket prices sky high. Suddenly, box office receipts are through the roof. No one questions the reasons, just that a movie must be popular and somehow worth seeing. Every movie I've seen in 2D also available in 3D, I've never felt like I was missing something. Virtually every movie I've seen in 3D, Ive never felt that the experience somehow benefited. And honestly, I don't see myself going to view any more 3D movies. Not this summer, not next, not the summer after that. Not ever. Just no. It would be better if more theaters upgraded their cinemas to digital screens. The Cinemark 16 screen theater here only has like, five or six digital screens. I love the digital screens, everything looks great and the images are superb. That's the kind of thing that theaters and movie makers need to invest in. The simple things that get hindquarters in seats. Great sound, great image quality, clean and well attended cinemas, and various and assorted amenities that make it worth seeing a movie on the big screen with an audience. Not cheap gimmicks that go nowhere and only serve a short term gain.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:15 a.m. CST

    3D gets old fast

    by tomimt

    At first, when I saw Avatar, I was in exited mode for about 30 mintues. After that I didn't care about 3D that much. With Thor the 3D just was there. I didn't feel I got anything out of it with the expection of those heavy glasses pressuring my nose. I could say I was more annoyed than thrilled. If I can avoid it, I doubt I'll be knowingly shelling extra for the 3D viewing pleasure.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:16 a.m. CST

    true 3D is a psyche-dimensional process

    by justmyluck

    I can put two quarters on the table and cross my eyes until my brain marries the quarters and they're now three, with the middle one 'floating' off the table. The brain is constantly adjusting mental focus from one object to another, constantly compensating depth perception. When a 3D camera images are projected, basically it is a flat 3D presentation. Okay, here's your 3D - enjoy! Even with the Pace/Cameron interocular "convergence" adjustments on the fly, the projected 3D image is still psychologically flat without a command of focus. Your brain is seeking that convergence point through the eyes of another photographer. This creates concentration problems when the convergence focus is popping all over the place with quick edits. So, projected 3D will only go so far, but I do like the process with the exception of the dimming from polarization. I'm positive the dimming will be eliminated in the future. I prefer 3D when it is thought out and not overdone, like with JC's AVATAR and PIXAR's movies. 3D is a matter of taste with regards to each films' subject/process/utilization, so I can't really give a blanket "yes" or "no" - and I don't think others should either.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:22 a.m. CST

    by Stephen

    Cameron is talking nonsense. He's seeing films through the prism of the Hollywood blockbuster. Yet even in Hollywood most of the films that get made each year are not action block busters. Why would the the makers of a romance or a drama make their film in 3D? And that isn't even counting the budget angle. The notion that an Indie film maker would spend a sizeable proportion of his tiny budget on 3D effects is as ludicrous as expecting him to blow $20+ million of his budget on a single big-name actor. And, yes, the premium they add to ticket prices for the privilege is just plain outrageous. Where I come from the main cinema chains offer discounted movie tickets on Tuesdays. However, they do NOT discount 3D movie prices! On those days going to a 3D movie is essentially double the price you'd pay to see it in 2D. And there is even one chain which charges you an EXTRA dollar for the glasses. (In their case you're allowed to keep them. However, if you forget to bring the ones you bought last time along next time you'll be paying another dollar for another pair!)

  • June 1, 2011, 3:30 a.m. CST


    by OhWhatTheFeckEver

    That's all it is. It adds nothing to my experience and having to wear stupid ass glasses makes it worse. It's just a continuation of the old parrallax scolling that "innovated" games way back in the eighties. It really is just a pathetic way to get people to fork out more to see usually average movies. Call me when we get real 3D where you can walk around a character and see what's really happening out of eye shot. Rubbish.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST


    by eveelcapitalist

    Yeah, I wear glasses as well and I'm always wondering if I'm losing something as the 3D glasses are essentially tilted forward a bit as the temple pieces don't fit over my glasses' which bow outwards. But I don't believe it to be the case. Of the 3D movies I have seen with friends, their viewing experiences and opinions mirrored my own and there is simply no way the studios would do something so blitherly stupid as to put out a product that wouldn't work for such a large part of the movie going public.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:46 a.m. CST

    3D is a gimmick to get back people leaving theaters.

    by JimboTHC

    And why are people leaving theaters? Cell phones, assholes and $20 dollar pop corn buckets... with a free refill.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:03 a.m. CST

    I own a 3D set & 3D conversion software

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    It's not a question of worth, it's a question of personal taste and the type of movie that is being presented in 3D. One fact that seems to keep getting misrepresented is that a movie shot in true 3D is vastly superior to one that was converted. That's a retarded statement and not true. I have done plenty of conversions of movies that I wanted to see in 3D that were shot in such a way that the 3D actually enhanced the movie experience and looked just as good as a movie that was actually shot in 3D like Avatar. Oddly enough James Cameron's Aliens looks phenomenal via the conversion process and can easily go toe to toe with Avatar IMO. To do the conversion right it has to be done frame by frame and yes it takes a long time to get it right but the results are fantastic with the right eye on the monitor and hand on the mouse.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:37 a.m. CST

    by Mt. Top

    Saw 'How to Train Your Dragon' in IMAX 2D and it was a beautiful, beautiful sight to behold. Saw it again a few days later in IMAX 3D and it was a dark, dingy piece of crap. I could not begin to believe how bad it looked. I have since been told this has everything to do with how the movie was shot. If it was shot natively specifically for 3D then it should not look dark in 3D. But if it was shot primarily for 2D but then 'converted' for 3D it was look dark and ugly.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:15 a.m. CST

    No 3D... ever.

    by onezeroone

    A lousy gimmick is a lousy gimmick. Haven't seen since TRON:Legacy and don't intend to. In fact I've skipped seeing some movies simply coz 2D show timings didn't fit my schedule. I don't watch movies for spectacle, but story. Spectacle can be icing on the cake but can never make up for the fact that there is no cake.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:35 a.m. CST

    Misshapen Cornea in Right Eye

    by WerePlatypus

    Unfortunately, asking me about 3D is like asking a deaf person to rate John Williams. Yeah. . . so, what am I doing on this talkback?

  • JIMHO.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:06 a.m. CST

    I like it in horror movies

    by CuervoJones

    3D is a good gimmick, and nothing more.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:23 a.m. CST

    The difference with 3D (and also why it's a money-grab)...

    by ninpobugei

    ...bastard theater owners never charged more for the screens showing movies in color (vs. b&w), nor did they crank up the prices for the screens with Dolby Surround Sound. But with 3D, suddenly it's open season to charge more for a ticket. And with the advent of these bullshit faux IMAX screens, again the public is getting screwed for more money.</p> <p> This is why I say 3D is just a gimmick and it WILL fade away. I don't believe it's here to stay. 3D ticket sales are already falling quickly. Pretty much only teenagers and die-hard fanboys are willing to pay the exorbitant rates (and we know how quickly both lose interest in the newest novelty and go looking for something else).</p> <p> Finally, movies are costing more and more to make (witness the truly ludicrous budget of $250 million for PIRATES 4) the technology isn't really making movies cheaper to produce (unless you count excellent efforts like DISTRICT 9). As sales continue to fall, 3D will be abandoned simply as a cost-saving measure.</p> <p> And 3D TV's for home use? Please. That is a sucker's game - spend the extra money for the tech. when the gimmick is going to go the way of the dodo? That's like all those poor suckers that rushed out to buy HD DVD's. Doesn't anyone learn from history - i.e. VHS vs. Betamax? It was obvious one of the two high-def DVD formats was going to win, but that didn't stop dumbass fanboys and an ignorant public from buying the videos and players. Hilarious!

  • June 1, 2011, 6:28 a.m. CST

    I have a....

    by Grrrr....

    ....7 month old son so no 3D or 2D movies for me... I'm starting to miss all the mouth breathing, cell phone talking, farting idiot masses... Only ever movie I watched in 3D was Avatar....

  • June 1, 2011, 6:30 a.m. CST

    look at the picture above


    Ladies dressed up. Men wearing suits (and tuxedos!) It was an event and a formal occasion to hit the theaters back then. I try to wear a suit when I go see a movie, just to keep the dream alive. Now, theaters look more like Wal-mart.

  • In mathematics, four-dimensional space ("4-D") is an abstract concept derived by generalizing the rules of three-dimensional space. It has been studied by mathematicians and philosophers for almost two hundred years, both for its own interest and for the insights it offered into mathematics and related fields. Algebraically it is generated by applying the rules of vectors and coordinate geometry to a space with four dimensions. In particular a vector with four elements (a 4-tuple) can be used to represent a position in four-dimensional space. The space is a Euclidean space, so has a metric and norm, and so all directions are treated as the same: the additional dimension is indistinguishable from the other three. In modern physics, space and time are unified in a four-dimensional Minkowski continuum called spacetime, whose metric treats the time dimension differently from the three spatial dimensions. Spacetime is thus not a Euclidean space.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:25 a.m. CST

    3D is like anything else

    by Peter David

    When it's done properly, it's tremendously useful and immerses you utterly in a way nothing else can. One of the most amazing movie-going experiences I've ever had was when I took my daughter to see "How to Train Your Dragon" in Imax 3D. The flying sequences were beyond astounding; you really felt airborne. After a climactic explosion, there was ash all over the place, falling in front and around you, and you felt like you were right there. And the colors were so vibrant that the darkening effect wasn't bothersome. The entire opening sequence took place at night; how's that for confidence on the part of the movie makers? And let's be honest here: we can rag on George Lucas and 3D all we want, but who ISN'T intrigued by the notion of that gigantic Imperial battle cruiser passing literally over their head in the reported 3D-release of "Star Wars." On the other hand, "Casablanca" wouldn't be a superior experience in 3D. At least to my eyes. Of course, "Casablanca" was also in black and white. Once upon a time, color ("Beautiful technicolor") was a big deal. People gasped in "Wizard of Oz" when Dorothy opened the door and color burst out of the screen. Most films were in b&w; only blockbusters and films that were considered "worth it" were in color. But here's the question: was a ticket for "Wizard of Oz" more than a ticket for a black and white film? My guess is that it wasn't. For all that we say 3D is just a movie making tool, it's not. Taking a hammer out of your tool box doesn't cost any more than taking out a screwdriver. People see it--not incorrectly--as a marketing and money making tool as well. And people don't like to be played or feel like they're being taken for granted. You give them an opportunity to go for the cheaper option, and they'll do it. The fast food industry is built on that precept. One of three things is going to have to happen in order for 3D to become more than an interesting novelty: 1) movie producers will have to commit to putting out movies ONLY in 3D, which they'll never do because they'll just be driving audiences to wait for DVD or even Netflix; 2) movie producers will do simultaneous releases of films in 2D via home reception means and in limited 3D release for the hard cores, making movie theaters essentially the ancillary market; 3) they stop charging extra for 3D films. PAD

  • June 1, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    What's killing 3D is two things

    by knowthyself

    1.)Lousy conversions that make the film darker and also where whole segments of the film are in 2D! 2)The ticket price. There's just no premium for 3D when theaters give you less of a CHOICE. I wanted to see Thor and the amount of 2D showings was a joke. I had the choice of either waiting four hours for the next available 2D showing or plunk down $17 to watch it in 3D in thirty minutes. That's not a choice it's a shot gun wedding. I've seen plenty of 3D movies and I find that it works best for cheesy horror movies and for animated films. (Avatar was 80% full CGI so that explains why it works so well in it.) It doesn't work for action movies because the action get's blurry with the 3D. My only concern is that in ten years when 3D is gone people are going to wonder why so many movies have shit flying at the screen.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Proof that 3D is a gimmick

    by knowthyself

    They don't release drama's in 3D. Where is Social Network 3D? or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in 3D?

  • June 1, 2011, 7:41 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    "So you little scrotum suckers whining about how 3D has failed before and is doomed to fail again remind me of the pussy-faces that said "Sony failed at minidisc so Blu-ray will fail too". No fucking clue what they were talking about, same as you." <p> Oh, you mean like how you rabidly defended HD-DVD on several forums for ages until even you had to admit you were wrong about Blu-Rays? <p> Oops.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Avatar was a drag

    by fatmoshe

    I still don't understand how Avatar became so successful? It's practically unwatchable. Sam Worthington has the charisma of a housefly, the computer animation, while impressive, still looks like a high-end video game, and the story/pacing is soooooo poor, that even the thought of suffering through another viewing makes me tired. The 3D in the film, much like the over-use of CGI and motion/facial capture in the film is high tech lipstick on a cinematic pig. I've worked in the computer animation field as an animator and modeler, I love most of Cameron's films (I've bought T2 and Aliens in every conceivable format from VHS to Laserdisc to DVD to BluRay), and I am all in favor of the Hollywood heavy hitters pushing the technology envelope, but just because Jim Cameron made it doesn't mean you have to like it.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:49 a.m. CST

    The tech is not up to scratch yet

    by Azby

    Its still blurry. Even Avatar, which was undeniably impressive, still suffered from blurriness. I am stil looking forward to seeing The Hobbit in 3D with its mega frame rate to see if the issue has been solved. However, post conversion must be stopped. 3D needs ground up considerations. It is clear there is a whole new cinematic language behind it, and if you just slap it on a film as a afterthought you will get a horrid mess. Alice in Wonderland was just pointless in 3D (it was pointless anyway - but you get what I mean). I still haven't seen an animated 3D film though - are they still blurry??

  • June 1, 2011, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Genuine 3D is probably 30 years away

    by BDuncan

    If people want genuine holographic 3D without any glasses, it's probably about 30-40 years away technology wise, as it's a lot more complex than people realise.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Apple already has patent on a NO GLASSES 3d projector

    by The Fuck

    look it up, its there.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:09 a.m. CST

    So were color and sound a gimmick???? NO!!

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because even in the crap forms that they started out in, people continued to watch films with sound and color. 3-D died in the 1950's because people got sick of it. Like now, 3-D was a cash grab by Hollywood to get butts in the seats beacause of television (which now the thing with television is that you can watch a film on blu-ray that looks better than the shit being digitally projected at your local theater). Let's be honest, theaters are dying, and the film industry knows it. This is their last grab for money from the theatrical experience before it goes away.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:11 a.m. CST

    I just wish I could see more major films in IMAX without the 3D

    by AlienFanatic

    My only problem with 3D is that it's now THE format for IMAX screens, meaning when a film is released in 3D, all of the IMAX or "best" screens are only in 3D. I know I'll want to see The Hobbit, for example, but I don't want to see it in 3D. Unfortunately, I know that in my area the only option, if I want to see it with the biggest possible picture, will be to watch it in 3D with the stupid glasses. I agree that some films are more fun with 3D, but it's a very, very, very small number of movies. Sadly, Hollywood's and the theater owners' accountants run the show here, and they are the ones who make the decisions about what film is shown where. I'm not a luddite by any means, but I'm largely left cold by 3D and wish we could go back to the days where it was used sparingly instead of ubiquitously.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:21 a.m. CST


    by DJJester

    My sentiments EXACTLY. There's one "Baby IMAX" screen within a 2 hour drive from me and I want to see the big awesome action movies on that bright crystal clear beautiful screen with the amazing sound, but so far 3D is a distraction or annoyance. My wife is one of those who gets headaches from watching in 3D and it ruins both our nights if she ends up feeling like crap b/c of a movie. I saw Despicable Me in 3D and did really enjoy the roller coaster scene and the end credits were hilarious but Thor and even Tron Legacy, I honestly didn't notice what was in 3D, maybe I was too busy being annoyed by the glasses to catch the few 3D Moments....

  • June 1, 2011, 8:25 a.m. CST

    a nice tool in the right hands,

    by unami

    but should not be used for the sake of it. it's not worth the higher ticket-price in my opinion. and i'll be damned if i ever sit down in front of a TV-Screen wearing those shutter-glasses.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:33 a.m. CST

    All about the cost for me

    by filmcoyote

    I quite like seeing a film in 3D and if it didn't cost extra i'd go but since most 3D films are summer blockbusters which i don't expect to be very good films anyway i am not going to pay extra to see a worse film. What is really annoying is i often find cinemas in the UK either don't show 2D versions of 3D films they are playing or make it really difficult to see the 2D versions. This means either a) i am forced to see the 3D version at extra cost when i would have seen 2D given the option, or b) i don't see a film, i would have quite liked to see, at all. These days it's usually the latter. The only film recently i've paid the 3D premium for was Cave Of Forgotten Dreams. I did so because i love Herzog and it was one of the rare 3D films that was worth it. I know i will never be allowed to see the Chauvet caves for myself and having Herzog's film in 3D, allowing you to really get a sense of the contours of the cave and the way the drawings curve around them, is like actually being there. A truly worthwhile 3D experience. But for the most part the cost prevents me going. I can't think of a single 3D film on the horizon that i want top see enough to pay extra for... well maybe Hugo Cabret just to see what Scorsese does with it - but i'd still rather not pay the extra.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:35 a.m. CST


    by Al

    The most revealing (and disturbing) thing about this talkback is the amount of jerkweeds who went to see Pirates of the Caribbean 4!! Cos 2 & 3 were so good you had to come back for some more?!?!!

  • 3D means the brightness needs to be doubled. Too many theatres don't have a clue how to air 3D movies. They just increase the tickets and sell the glasses.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:58 a.m. CST

    FIFTEEN MINUTES IN, and I don't notice it anymore.

    by Yotz Von Frelnik

    Seriously, after a little bit of time, I have to flip my glasses off and back on again to "reboot" the effect for myself. It just all becomes run of the mill once your senses accept it. I saw Pirates in 2D deliberately for these reasons. 3D isn't going to be something to truly watch until they perfect glasses-free technology. This WILL happen someday, probably in the next 10-15 years.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST

    REAL 3D vs FAKE 3D

    by xoandre

    Here's the website I refer to whenever I am considering seeing a film and trying to choose if I should pay extra or not to see it in 3D... And even if it is SHOT in 3D, I also consider which theatre/cinema I want to see it in. Knowing which ones actually fully light the camera bulb (vs those that dim it to save power) so that the brightness/gamma/saturation will compensate for teh dimming effect of wearing the 3D glasses.... Knowing all that makes the difference. Also, if the film is one that I am not all that thrilled about, just willing to sit through for some reason or other, I don't bother with the 3D version. Paying the $3.00 upcharge here near Chicago for some crappy glasses that hurt the bridge of my nose unless I spend 20 minutes trying to carefully bend them but not break them - so they fit the CURVATURE between my nose and outer edge of my eyes.... Paying that extra is not worth it 99% of the time.

  • Do you perceive everyday life seen through your eyes as 3D or not?

  • June 1, 2011, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Knowthyself... about gimmicks...

    by ufoclub1977

    you realize color films were the same way at first? Just for special films? and the most seriously talked about 3D film I know of of recently is a documentary. Not an action or fantasy/scifi film.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:54 a.m. CST

    3D home video cameras are now available

    by ufoclub1977

    that's not for big budget action movies. That's for kid's birthdays.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    IMAX 3D = Da Shizz

    by Autodidact

    That digital 3D stuff is very hit and miss. TRON Legacy was a real disappointment for me. Even the 3D flying scenes at the end seemed completely flat to me. I think my local 3D venues are guilty of the dim bulb flaw. But there's an IMAX 3D not much further away and I've never been disappointed by an IMAX 3D presentation.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Hmmm, did someone read Ebert's latest blog?

    by T

    It covered this, I thought. 3D is a waste of money. I saw Avatar in both 3D & 2D. Enjoyed it more in 2D... I'd thought by now, oh, say, 2011, we'd have fuckin' HOLOGRAPHIC 3D shit. Didn't Lumpy have HOLO TV in the Holiday Special? Yeah, it sucked, but I am rambling tired. Current 3D is still too much like those MAGIC EYE posters; work for your eyes.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:07 a.m. CST

    3D in theaters and @ home

    by Nelson

    10+ lurker and I finally felt the desire to TB. I've been selective in my 3D theater viewing...Avatar 3D, yes; Thor 3D, no; animated movies, mostly yes, and I'm not ashamed to say that I look for AICN inputs when deciding on whether to take a chance at the 3D version of a film or not. So far, I've been happy with the selections I've made. By and large, I've not seen a 3D movie yet that I didn't enjoy in 3D. I've also not regretted choosing to see a 3D movie in 2D either. Anyway, that's just a data point to consider... I recently had a Sony TV fail and as a result, was offered a 55" new hi-end Sony with 3D capability. I've been avoiding these TVs due to the cost of the glasses ($150 at the time) and limited selection of programming. Now that I have it I have to say wow. I'm very impressed just how bright and sharp my 3D home viewing as been. I don't have top of the line equipment (my PS3 is my 3D BD player), but my experience has been terrific. I've got most of the available 3D BD movies or have at least viewed them on my TV and each one has been great. How to Train your Dragon, Megamind, Avatar, Tron Legacy, Monsters v. Aliens, Drive Angry, Piranha, Shreks 1-4, Toy Story 1-3, Tangled, etc...none of them suffered from the overly darkening affect I've heard so much about. On my screen, the images are sharp and bright. I'd also like to say that 2011 has seen the release of glasses that cost 1/3 of previous entries. I have 6 sets now, 2 that were free and 4 2011 models that I've picked up. Each work great and I'm happy to see the prices falling. In the end, from my own experiences, I've enjoyed 3D viewing mostly because I've been selective. With the home viewing via BD and Fios programming, I'm thrilled and look forward to the technology as it matures.

  • It's just a way to get prices up higher... like when gas spikes up way high & people sigh with relief when it goes down... but hardly EVER low as it was.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Quick answer is.........Sometimes!

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    I've only ever seen 3 new films in 3D. Two were fucking amazing, and one was so underwhelming that it made me think less of the film I was watching. Beowulf - Fan-fucking-tastic. And the ketamin only added to the total win of that experience. Avatar. Lush. Fucking lush!!! Pirates 4. The very definition of underwhelming. I;m sure I think less of the whole film because of the pedestrian use of 3D. Either that, or Pirates 4 is just a plane mediocre film. In conclusion, 3D should be saved for special event films, and other big visual spectacles. Going to watch Kung Fu Panda 2 asap.

  • For me anyway, it has nothign to do with the additional cost of 3D screenings and more to do with the impracticality of having young children watch a movie with 3D glasses.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Answer: Nope. 'Nuf said.

    by abe

  • June 1, 2011, 10:14 a.m. CST

    James Cameron is a complete douche. Here's proof:

    by LargoJr

    He publicly declared that 'Pan-N-Scan' was THE way to watch his films... what a fucking jackass.. CHECK PLEASE!

  • June 1, 2011, 10:19 a.m. CST

    SpaceHunter in the Forbidden Zone in 3D

    by T

    Yeah, I saw THAT in the theaters... LOL!

  • June 1, 2011, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Does this help?

    by Chris Wright

  • June 1, 2011, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Isn't 3-D bad for children anyway

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Doesn't that new Nintendo 3-D handheld system have a warning on it that kids under a certain age shouldn't play it on the 3-D setting because their eyes are still developing?

  • June 1, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST


    by tigana99

    I agree that Avatar was enhanced by the 3D. It made that strange, beautiful world even more strange and beautiful. But most movies I have seen in 3D are diminished by the technology. It's distracting. The enjoyment of a movie requires the suspension of disbelief; it requires one to forget one is watching a movie. But 3D throws the viewer out of this forgetfulness. As Roger Ebert has observed, 3D is a waste of a dimension. When we are watching a movie, we already "believe" in its dimensionality. Artificially adding another dimension makes the illusion less believable.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    No, not worth it.

    by jimmy_009

    The effect wears off after you've seen it enough to the point where it just seems like you're watching a normal movie, but paying more. Unfortunately, until people stop paying for it it won't be going anywhere. Hold it for a special films that actually merit it, like Tron.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:59 a.m. CST

    2D or not 2D

    by luke_lymon

    First of all, I have never seen a movie in 3D that I didn't enjoy as much or more in 2D. I enjoy IMAX only when the movie is about the effects, like fast moving rollercoasters or cars or planes or helicopters. etc., etc. UP was the first 3D movie I enjoyed because it didn't take long for the story to bore me thereby letting me absorb scenery. Ever since then, when I go to a movie that I want to enjoy because of the story or the actors, 3D becomes more of a distraction if not a major interruption. Once someone invents a 3D equalizer with which I can control the special effects, I will not invest in another 3D event(unless it focuses only on thrills of motion and scenery). Other than that, just leave my 2D movies the hell alone!

  • June 1, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    I like 3d:

    by neomotion

    it pulls you more into the movie, but only if done right. Thor was actually pretty good. I remember seeing Beowulf in 3D, and that shot of him running up the round stairs with the dragon was pretty cool. The first time i was impressed with the technique. Also, Avatar did it just right. Not in your face, but to pull you into the world. The scene of the tree and the fire was awesome. So, it could be worth it, if done right. And i usually go for the 3d version, if done right.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:11 a.m. CST

    3-D from a Hollywood Insider's Perspective

    by Nick

    I have worked on most of the tentpole 3D films that have been released, including Avatar. Here's what I can say after 6 years of shooting 3D: It will never work the way Hollywood wants it to. Avatar was as good as it was because most of the film was effectively animated - it was performance capture with a virtual camera. This methodology allowed Jim Cameron to tweak the stereo space until it was perfected - a luxury most productions cannot afford. Actually, most of the live action footage in the film was actually pretty flawed and a good deal of it actually had to be CONVERTED. This is a dirty secret behind this film. What's more - while conversions don't really add any true depth to a film, shooting in production 3D tends to slow down the filmmaking process greatly (see Michael Bay's recent diatribe on that) and to add to that, if you shoot in 3D you are locked into all the artifacts that are very likely to give the audience a headache. So for everyone claiming, "Hey - the problem with 3D are conversions!!" I have news for you - that's just ONE of the problems with 3D. Pirates was shot in true 3D using Cameron's rigs and the 3D was terrible. Some of the best stereoscopic experts in the country oversaw that film and I can tell you that the results were still predictably disappointing. The bottom line is that 3D at this juncture is a cash grab - it's the tail wagging the dog. The studios see no reason for it other than to be able to charge an additional 3-4 dollars a ticket. Otherwise it isn't worth the additional cost and severe additional headaches that 3D brings to the schedule (both production and post). So, while the audiences are pissed about the extra ticket cost and are demanding it go back down what they don't realize is that simply cannot happen. The studios have no interest in paying up to 30 million more per picture for 2D ticket prices. The only place I like 3D at this point is in animation - where the cameras are perfect and the stereo can be adjusted until perfectly comfortable (that also doesn't always work - see Fly Me To The Moon, Monsters Vs. Aliens, etc) Just so you guys know - if Transformers 3's 3D screenings fall short of projected intake then the 3D movement is going to be officially in big trouble. Hollywood is blaming marketing for Pirate's dismal 3D box office numbers ("they didn't push the 3D enough" is their present excuse) and so Paramount is putting a major push to get the word out for Transformers 3 that it's in 3D. So if you want to see the 3D movement just die already then make sure you go see it in 2D and avoid the 3D showings. Trust me, the execs are watching the per screen averages from the 3D theaters VERY closely. Take it from me after 6 years of real 3D experience - it isn't worth it. You guys are all being manipulated in an effort to charge more for movies, sell new tv's and home theater equipment, and to curb piracy. That's it. That's the only reason 3D exists. Most of the big directors I have spoken to could honestly give a **** about the technology - but are being forced to shoot it by the studios. The time they are taking out of their insane shooting schedules to concentrate on 3D technology when they should be concentrating on directing actors and developing story is so disconcerting to me. Ultimately I think it just amounts to a bad movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Anne Rice's comment on Hollywood

    by SmokingRobot

    She said, 'they kept asking for meeting, I kept saying, can't I just send you the script. Then I had a meeting and I realized....these people are idiots and can't read'. So...I guess Hollywood's inability to make an intelligent movie has led to .... wait for it.... THE GIMMICK OF 3D.

  • June 1, 2011, 11:57 a.m. CST

    The 3-D deception

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Well another dirty little secret about 3-D's success is that the monetary success is tied to getting enough people to come in at the high prices, because the actual number of tickets sold has gone way down in the past couple of years. The audience is shriking and shrinking, and 3-D being shoved down people's throats is actually keeping ticket buyers away who either don't want to see a film in 3-D, or don't want to pay the mark-up. I'm curious to see what total number of tickets sold on something like Avatar compares to Cameron's own Titanic, or even something like Phantom Menace.

  • with the exception of the Asgardian bridge, I found the 3D somewhat distracting while watching the film. and not to mention how it looked tacked on. As i had previously mentioned, The 3D craze is being used to bring in more box office revenue since the movie industry is losing millions due to home video and of course piracy. So far, I am not impressed by this trend and watching the movies is like a giant sized viewmaster in your fucking face. Put it simple, it's a gimmick be movies, lcd televisions and now videogames. i can do much better without the effects, fuck you very much.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Scorsese and Spielberg working in 3-D

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Sure it's interesting considering who they are, but notice both of their movies are basically kids films (Hugo Caberet and Tintin). It's not like they're going to be shooting Lincoln and Silence in 3-D. So really I'm not really that thrilling to see what they're doing since basically both Tintin and Hugo Caberet are the types of films that are already being done in 3-D. I'm actually more interested in what Bernardo Bertolucci has in mind if he really does that drama with two people in a basement he talked about at Cannes.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Passion Of The Christ in 3-D

    by thelordofhell

    Mel Gibson's career is shot, so he might as well go for this cash grab. He can get that film converted and re-released on Easter weekend. I'll take a date and make out during the whole film.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    nizratch-Interesting points, and if any 3-D haters watch TF3

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Go watch it in 2-D then.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:32 p.m. CST


    by Lord Elric reaction from the audience on that. I mean...dead silence. Also, to be honest, the 3d on the trailer doesn't look impressive at all. I'm just not feeling it. I'll take another look at the trailer in 3d this weekend, as I believe it's playing with X-MEN FIRST CLASS. But if the 3d in that movie is like the trailer... Game over, man. Pirates, on the other hand. The trailer looked awesome in a Sony 4k environment. Shame that that seemed to be the movie's only 3d highlights.

  • June 1, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    What will come after 3-D???

    by Alabama Smith

    Although the re-emrgence of 3-D has captivated Hollywoods obsession in gimmick-laden retro stunts, I am very curious to see what is up on the block next. 3-D will e around for awhile until another technology takes its place. Once the industry makes it more home theater affordable, the studios have a cash crop on their hands. Perhaps cinema incorporated with live action theater (Terminator 3-D at Universal rings a bell)?

  • June 1, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    When given a choice, we go 2D....

    by DellsDontBounce

    However, I may see Transformers in 3D if I hear it's worth it...

  • June 1, 2011, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Alabama Smith, 4-D will come after 3-D!

    by Arafel

    Didn't you read my previous post on the subject? Just like the number 4 comes after the number 3, 4-Dimensional movies will come after 3-Dimensional movies. Look for it to start hitting threaters around 2031-2035.

  • June 1, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    Only if filmed in 3D

    by DarthJedi

    Conversions always seem to look like crap, but if filmed in 3D, then they look great. Avatar was simply breathtaking in it's visuals with 3D. The Hobbit is being filmed in 3D and I am sooo looking forward to seeing what PJ does with it in those. It's gotta suck for those who have issues where they can't see the 3D correctly. I have a couple of friends with eye issues that have never been able to watch a 3D movie and get the full experience.

  • June 1, 2011, 1 p.m. CST


    by docbrown88


  • June 1, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Until you can watch 3D without wearing anything, then it will stay a gimmic

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    also interesting stuff Nizratch. But after Pirates, I will chose most films in 2D unless there is a strong case for 3D. However, I thought the Panda 2 trailer in 3D before Pirates was awesome, and I cant wait to see that in 3D :)

  • June 1, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Generally not worth it.

    by Homer Sexual

    3D is anti-art, for sure, and hasn't added anything to "quality" movies I've seen. And this only referes to movies filmed in 3D, when it's added later it is a complete rip-off. Movies improved by 3D: My Bloody Valentine, Piranha 3D, Resident Evil, Avatar. Not improved: Everything Else I've seen in 3D. Just a grab for money without much in return, generally speaking.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST

    by AdlerRease

    well i think there is a problem with the perception of 3D in a couple of areas. with the increased cost of seeing a 3D movie i feel like movie watchers want the depth but also the "wow" factor. they want certain parts of the movie to look like it's sitting right next to them. alot of directors look at that as being a gimmick to instead of enhancing the movie. where i personally think depth and "wow" do enhance the movie, i appreciate those moments. second i just don't think directors really know how to use 3D like james cameron. if they did post production 3D conversion would should die altogether. there's no shame in making a great 2D movie, but i get straight pissed when someone makes a shite quality 3D movie that me and a friend paid 50$ to go see and i wouldn't even consider it 3D. for example alice in wonder land was... OK. the best bit of 3D related to alice in wonder land was the trailer when the cat's face looked like it was floating in the air. so they set lofty expectations for the movie that really never happened, and thus disappointment. anyway that's my 2 cents

  • Every technician in film contributes to the story.

  • June 1, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by empty_headed_animal

    are you a studio stooge? Face it, most people don't like it. So far it adds zero to the experience and most people say it actually takes away some of the movie going experience. So sorry to ruin your woody for 3D.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    3-D has its place, but its not always about spectacle

    by subtlety

    Saw Wener Herzog's CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS this weekend, and his use of 3D to explore texture, surface, and light is stunning and absolutely necessary to that particular film. So it has a genuine use, but Cameron's wrong that it's the best method for spectacle. Films which are about immersing the audience in a world of great detail and depth benefit a great deal from 3D. Other times (Pixar's films), its kinda cool but doesn't necessarily add much. For most modern action films, it makes everything a muddled mess.

  • June 1, 2011, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Who gives a fuck what anne rice says?

    by claxdog

  • June 1, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    To Darth Jedi "Only if filmed in 3D"

    by Nick

    Pirates was shot in 3D and it wasn't very good stereo wise. Also, Resident Evil 4, Final Destination 4, etc. All crap 3D. Shooting in 3D is it's own bag of hurt - you're subject to all sorts of problems having to do with the mirror box and the fact that the cinematographer often is trying to shoot the best looking picture they can and not necessarily the best 3D picture they can. The bottom line is that shooting in production 3D in no way will guarantee you a quality product. This "it has to be shot in 3D" line that Cameron and crew is selling you guys is just their way of being defensive about why such poor product is finding it's way to market. Plus, Cameron OWNS A 3D RENTAL HOUSE. It behooves him to push that agenda since it amounts to more money in his pocket. Yes, Hobbit is being filmed in 3D - perhaps it will be a good looking film. It doesn't change the fact that for every one great film in 3D that is released that 30 crap ones follow. It's a VERY technical medium that requires a ton of money to get exactly right and comfortable for the audience. I don't think any technology that requires this much care can truly work in this industry because filmmaking is, by it's very nature, a chaotic and messy business. Things move way too fast. If you want proof of other technologies that were amazing but failed please see: Showscan and Cinerama. The studios are pushing 3D because box office attendance is very very low right now and they need your extra 4 dollars to show a profit. That's it - pure and simple. I can tell you honestly that prior to Avatar when I was trying to sell 3D films to studios that each and every one of them said they thought it was a shit technology and that they were utterly unimpressed. After the $$$$$ of Avatar those same executives were firmly on the 3D bandwagon. Please, realize when you're being taken advantage of people.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    I tend to avoid 3d

    by Lang The Cat

    Primarily because I wear glasses and wearing two pair at once is uncomfortable. Also, 3d movies usually don't offer much. The only two 3d films I have seen and liked were How to Train Your Dragon and Avatar (I liked the 3d in Avatar better than I liked the writing). Paying an additional $2-$4 per seat is too steep during this economic climate as well. For me to see a 3d film, it will have to have two things: <bk><bk> 1. Be shot for 3d <bk><bk> 2. Be well reviewed for 3d.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Rule for studios. NO conversions!

    by hallmitchell

    I do like it on Toy Story 3 and AVATAR. While i thought AVATAR wasn't that good. The 3D was fantastic. The big push for 3D is the studios feel that can charge like bulls and it stops the handycam Asian DVD effect.

  • June 1, 2011, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Hallmitchell - "Avatar and conversions"

    by Nick

    Avatar's 3D worked because it was, like your other example of Toy Story 3, an animated feature. Cameron shot it using a virtual camera system - meaning - for the majority of that movie there were no ACTUAL 3-D cameras used. All the 3D came from computers. Only around 30 percent of that movie was shot using actual 3D cameras and some of that was CONVERTED because the 3D didn't work the way they thought it would on set. Animation movies - great 3D. Everything else? Shit. Please see Cameron's other pet project - "Sanctum" which was shot mostly using production 3D cameras. It's terrible, and the 3D is terrible. So again, the problem isn't necessarily JUST conversions. You guys have to get off the "no conversion" bandwagon. It isn't the conversions that are killing 3D - it's the medium itself. The only way for the studios to get the message is for the audience to just go to the 2D screenings.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Nope! Avatar in 3D worked because...

    by Orionsangels

    Well not only because it used special 3D cameras, but you were seeing CG graphics pushed to the limit. It was a spectacle. So marry that with 3D and you have a winner, but Avatar was a rarity that comes maybe every ten years. Hollywood didn't see it like that. Hollywood saw 3D was a hit and saw dollar signs. Now everything is infected with 3D.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST


    by Nick

    Yes, the CGI was good but the topic of this talkback isn't the f'ing Visual Effect Society Awards - it's whether the 3D worked or not.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by mercilessmagic

    I like the cut of your gibberish. 2D is really 3D, (height + width + time) and 3D is really 4D (H + W + Depth + time). So it is non euclidean 4D. the human eye is not designed to view euclidean 4D, and anyway, we are using the term 3D as defined by the movie industry, not as a mathematical term.

  • June 1, 2011, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Star Wars 3D: Jar-Jar in your face

    by Pizza The Hut

    Meesa gonna give yew all da biiiiiiiiiiiiiig big kissy-issy on yer faces!!! I wuv yewz guyz!!!

  • June 1, 2011, 5:14 p.m. CST

    I'll pay to see the Avatar sequel in 3d...

    by KillDozer

    otherwise it's 2D for me from now on. I made the decision to see Thor in 2D and didn't feel like I missed a thing. Plus, I saved $10.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Once again (sigh)...

    by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Gravy

    "Avatar's 3D worked because it was, like your other example of Toy Story 3, an animated feature. Cameron shot it using a virtual camera system - meaning - for the majority of that movie there were no ACTUAL 3-D cameras used. All the 3D came from computers. Only around 30 percent of that movie was shot using actual 3D cameras and some of that was CONVERTED because the 3D didn't work the way they thought it would on set." This is completely wrong, as I said above, and its another example of people stacking the decks in favor of an argument with misinformation.

  • June 1, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Conversions are bad...

    by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Gravy

    unless you take AT LEAST 6-8 months to do them right. The main problem, apart from them being rushed, is that they are outsourced to foreign conversion houses, independently of the involvement of the director and his creative team, and worked on by people who weren't there during the shoot; therefore, they have no idea where the planes of focus are supposed to be, nor the spatial separattion between foreground and background objects. Left to their own devices, and without any guidelines, guesswork is employed, leading to inevitably shoddy results. You cannot homogenise 3D work like that; all films are specific cases, and each director's own style, choices of lenses and compositions determine what should really be done when converting a movie to 3D. The 3D format itself is sound; it's bad creative choices that sour it.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST


    by whooooooop

    Stuff SHOT in NATIVE 3D is AMAZING and DOES NOT look like flat levels. Thats not a gimmick, its beautiful, super sharp image, much CLEARER and cleaner than regular film, Half of the reason to watch is for the clarity. Its all this crappy cheaply CONVERTED to 3D that RUINS the film companies are trying to pass that off, but its ruining people's opinions, of something thats actually incredible. A new level of film altogether. Some of the IMAX Under the Sea Films, or absolulty a work of artistic beauty... its mind blowing to everyone i show in my plasma 3D tv, i've had for 6 months.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:10 p.m. CST


    by whooooooop

    are now becoming the norm. ITs GOING to be incredible.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:13 p.m. CST

    SOOOO not true,

    by whooooooop

    thats SOOOO not true, ALOT of imax movies are shot in NATIVE 3D, and its a the clearest sharpest image i've EVER seen on a screen hands down...the level of possibly artistry has NOW been Lifted Up... its these cheap conversions that are ruining the image of 3D....agh..its a horrible travesty that its happening like that...UGH!

  • June 1, 2011, 6:14 p.m. CST

    by whooooooop

    Stuff SHOT in NATIVE 3D is AMAZING and DOES NOT look like flat levels. Thats not a gimmick, its beautiful, super sharp image, much CLEARER and cleaner than regular film, Half of the reason to watch is for the clarity. Its all this crappy cheaply CONVERTED to 3D that RUINS the film companies are trying to pass that off, but its ruining people's opinions, of something thats actually incredible. A new level of film altogether. Some of the IMAX Under the Sea Films, are absolulty a work of artistic beauty... its mind blowing to everyone i show in my plasma 3D tv, i've had for 6 months. The entire image is in focus, or its hard to explain you can focus on whatever in a paused screen you want to focus on, and your eyes will naturally put whatever you're not looking at out of focus...just like in life...this is NOT the way film has worked up until now...

  • And it was probably Tron Legacy. The studios themselves are killing it actively.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    so not true!

    by whooooooop

    Stuff SHOT in NATIVE 3D is AMAZING and DOES NOT look like flat levels. Thats not a gimmick, its beautiful, super sharp image, much CLEARER and cleaner than regular film, Half of the reason to watch is for the clarity. Its all this crappy cheaply CONVERTED to 3D that RUINS the film companies are trying to pass that off, but its ruining people's opinions, of something thats actually incredible. A new level of film altogether. Some of the IMAX Under the Sea Films, or absolulty a work of artistic beauty... its mind blowing to everyone i show in my plasma 3D tv, i've had for 6 months.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST


    by whooooooop

    YES I"VE SEEN SOME OF THE MOST ARTISTIC FILM IN 3D of MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!!! CLEAREST IMAGE, you're BRAIN can take in so much more detail in GOOD 3D. PEOPLE ARE JUST JUMPING ON THE HATE BANDWAGON, and Maybe rightfully, and sadly so because their only experience has been and extreme cheap on...even Avatar while having good depth, as a tacky tacky movie.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Such an IDIOT! you dont know what you're trying to kill!

    by whooooooop

    Stuff SHOT in NATIVE 3D is AMAZING and DOES NOT look like flat levels. Thats not a gimmick, its beautiful, super sharp image, much CLEARER and cleaner than regular film, Half of the reason to watch is for the clarity. Its all this crappy cheaply CONVERTED to 3D that RUINS the film companies are trying to pass that off, but its ruining people's opinions, of something thats actually incredible. A new level of film altogether. Some of the IMAX Under the Sea Films, or absolulty a work of artistic beauty... its mind blowing to everyone i show in my plasma 3D tv, i've had for 6 months.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Saw Thor in both formats

    by NHRonin

    The 3D added absolutely nothing to the film. Only films like Avatar that are filmed with the special cameras seem to be worth it. Toy Story 3 actually worked too. In most cases, it's just not necessary and is only a money grab for the studios.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:40 p.m. CST


    by Colin62

    No, no, no. Pay extra for movie to look fake, no I will not.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Sorry 3D isn't going anywhere

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Avatar's near $3 billion gross, and the inevitable Hobbit 3D/48fps multi billion gross will make sure of that. You might as well stop bitching and enjoy it.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:18 p.m. CST


    by Nick

    "The main problem (with conversions), apart from them being rushed, is that they are outsourced to foreign conversion houses, independently of the involvement of the director and his creative team, and worked on by people who weren't there during the shoot; therefore, they have no idea where the planes of focus are supposed to be, nor the spatial separattion between foreground and background objects. Left to their own devices, and without any guidelines, guesswork is employed, leading to inevitably shoddy results. " I've worked on the conversion of a major studio motion picture before and while you're correct as far as your information about the majority of the VFX work being done abroad - it was all managed stateside and we would have bi-weekly creative meetings with the stereographer, the director, the producers and the studio heads. That went on for MONTHS. The creative team is actually rarely left out of this process for a good deal of the conversions. In fact, the typical conversion schedule alots for at least 4 creative revisions at the base price. So you're just wrong there and most likely reciting something your friend told you or that you read in a magazine. And most VFX work is done by people in korea and india because that's where the cheap labor is. Even at major VFX houses (the brand name label ones) they outsource the basic labor to work abroad but oversee it here. Conversions are nothing more than visual effects and the conversion houses are following the VFX model. Are you going to criticize Transformers VFX work because some of it was done abroad? You know little about this industry obviously. Also, I was on the Avatar set and I know exactly how it was shot, so please don't attempt to correct me on that one.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Studio stooge?? Phhhhhhhhttt!

    by MoffatBabies

    LOL. If I had the paycheck to prove it, I'd post a scan of it to shove it in your face. I'm deeply impressed with just how stupid many of the people here are. I really was expecting people to have a basic understanding of the technology, at the least. Or at least a grasp on their own experiences. Some of you seem to not even know what 3d IS at ALL. "Oh, yeah I have to"reboot" the experience by taking off the glasses and putting them back on". DUDE! NO! It's good if you stop noticing it. "Whole parts of the movie were flat" NO! They were not. They just were beyond the screen rather than in front of it. I went to UP with someone who said the same thing, but they had failed to notice that the film was 3d throughout. It just didn't pop OUT of the screen. This person thought that entire sections of the film were in 2d. Nope. I'm convinced that some people simply cannot really experience it, not the way the rest of us do. I can't explain how or why, but I'm now convinced. Another friend of mine argued with me for hours once about how his copy of Quake Arena (and the game itself) was "true 3d" simply because the perspective changed and 3 dimensions were "represented". And to the ones saying "3d isn't here to stay" , quoting numbers and such.. sorry the infrastructure is in place and it's not going anywhere. And one of you even complained about gaming in 3d. Are you insane?? The whole point of gaming is immersion and the re-creation or hightening of reality. Tell you what.. stop gaming. It's wasted on you. If anyone here had at any point tried truly 3d virtual reality, you'd eat your words and beg to do whatever you can to promote anything 3d. Once again, pluck an eye out, flatboy. Cause reality is in 3d. It sickens me a little to say it, but a large number of the posters here are not that sharp and honestly I wish I had a way to ban you from ever seeing anything in 3d. For life. Just for being a small stick in the spokes of progress. Sorry, did I just misspell dick?

  • June 1, 2011, 7:23 p.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    Exactly. The idea that it's going away is laughable, from almost any perspective. (see what I did there?)

  • June 1, 2011, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Someone else proved my point again earlier

    by MoffatBabies

    "It will always be a gimmick"... and then in the same post... "why would anyone make a drama in 3d?" That's like the world's most obvious, stupid contradiction. Face the truth, you WANT it to be a gimmick. It has nothing to do with what it IS or what it COULD be. It's just what you want. Think of it this way... "Black people are bad at math." and then... from the same person... "Why would anyone waste their time teaching math to blacks?" Idiots. I win. Face it, then get over it, you're welcome.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    See the guy right below you? He proves your point. The way he judges 3d is from a CONVERSION. These conversions need to be exposed for what they are. Because people are judging the format based on the wrong materials.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:35 p.m. CST

    And to the guy who converts films to 3d at home..

    by MoffatBabies

    with his "software". Dude, get your eyes checked. You're a mess. I've seen those home conversions, too. And they are HORRIFIC! It's a blurry mess. It actually relies on camera movement for dimensional cues. When it does work, it looks better than Clash of The Titans, for about 4 seconds.. and when things are moving. But the rest of the time it's flat, blurry or it misinterprets things and it's a mess. If you had even a basic understanding about what's needed in order to extrapolate dimensional information from a 2d image you'd know that you're full of shit. But like a small percentage of the general population, you don't even know 3d when you see it and misinterpret flat images for 3d images. I hate to be harsh about it, folks, but you're just begging for it now.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:40 p.m. CST


    by Nick

    "Avatar's near $3 billion gross, and the inevitable Hobbit 3D/48fps multi billion gross will make sure of that. You might as well stop bitching and enjoy it." The Dark Knight made a billion dollars. Inception made nearly that... Fast Five was also a non 3-D film that is already at 600m. Two or three high grossing films doesn't necessarily make for an entire movement. 2D films have been making billions of dollars for a LONG time. Most people, if you ask them why they saw Avatar or why they will go see the hobbit will NOT say they are seeing it for the 3D - they're seeing it for the story. So I ask you - How come no one is extolling the virtues of Step Up 3-D, Final Destination 4, or Jackass 3D, what about that Jonas Brothers Movie or Hannah Montana or Resident Evil?? My Bloody Valentine had some top 3D experts on it... All those films were shot in NATIVE 3D and you know what? None of them were impressive in the least. Alice in Wonderland on the other hand is a film which most critics cite as having very high quality 3D - but it was actually a conversion since they discovered that it was wayyy too expensive to match the VFX to the native 3D footage. So again, every tool can be used right if put in the right hands. Conversion isn't the enemy. Native 3D isn't the enemy. Bad product is the enemy. Hollywood is notorious for putting out bad product all the time - right? Everyone complains about the crap movies we put out. Well, the problem here is this: We're not going to stop putting out bad movies. And we're not going to stop putting bad 3D out there too. Except when you watch a bad movie in 2D you get a laugh out of it... When you watch bad 3D you just get distracted, uncomfortable, or a massive headache. It takes the enjoyment out of the entire film. That's a flawed technology. Yes, there will be exceptional examples of 3D that are released - that doesn't mean that it should stay around. Most things that the studios will put out will be crap. If one or two films dictated an entire cinematic movement then showscan should still be around - and films shot in 65mm.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST


    by empty_headed_animal

    I stand corrected, you're not a stooge. A troll and a douchebag ,but defenately not a stooge.

  • June 1, 2011, 7:52 p.m. CST

    dumb ass

    by clavo

    Also, I have vision issues - I wear glasses and I have diabetic issues as well - That is like a guy without feet saying that he doesnt like shoes. Tron Legacy was incredible in 3D...if any movie was made for 3D it was Tron, motard!

  • June 1, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    3-D Fun ... But

    by eck_iii

    Avatar was fantastic. Toy Story 3 was fun, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra ticket price. I don't think it makes the film going experience that much better.

  • June 1, 2011, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Me? I like 3D

    by Ninja Nerd

    I don't like every film done in 3D, but Avatar and Toy Story 3, as some have mentioned were EXCELLENT. By the way, Popular Science has an article about 3D tech for the home that does NOT require glasses. While making actual sets would be fairly cheap and easy, none of the current content and methodology would work on these "autostereoscopic" systems. So, unlikely at best.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    "Enter the Void" in 3D ...

    by ReportAbuse

    OMFG I can't believe I just thought of that. Too bad it'll never happen.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:04 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed 3D on Avatar and Tron.

    by bellwether

    On everything else it was a detriment to the film - whether it was Thor (a conversion, I think) or Pirates 4 (which I believe was filmed in 3D), I wished in hindsight I'd seen the film in 2D. Unfortunately that wasn't always an option due to cinema times. But apart from Avatar and Tron, both of which had excellent 3D, I've found the 3D distracting enough to diminish my enjoyment of the film - and in future I'll alway pick 2D unless there's very good word-of-mouth on the 3D version.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:21 p.m. CST


    by kungfuhustler84

    Getting skull-fucked by polygons is not worth the extra money.

  • June 2, 2011, 12:25 a.m. CST

    It's just a tool....

    by Petruchio99

    Hey Nordling, I really enjoyed your thoughts on this. I am working with Stereoscopic on a daily basis and it is NOT the second coming of theatrical movies as Cameron would have us believe. It's just a tool, and if put into the right hands it can add to the experience of the film. But it won't make a bad film any better or make a weak story any tighter. With the exception of Avatar, which is 99% green screen anyway, I have yet to see a Stereoscopic "Live Action" film that I felt warranted the use of the medium. Films like "Thor" and "Pirates 4" were a waste of time in Stereoscopic. However, Kung Fu Panda 2, in IMAX 3D, was the best use of "3D" I've ever seen. It is liked by the studios for one reason - increased revenue. They don't give a shit if it enhances the story. Well, Pixar, Dreamworks, etc. care, but not the "live action" studios. I think in the end that "3D" will hang around, especially in animation where it is a natural fit. But it's use in live action will eventually wane once the box office receipts no longer warrant the cost.

  • June 2, 2011, 1:12 a.m. CST


    by MoffatBabies

    "All those films were shot in NATIVE 3D and you know what? None of them were impressive in the least." Shitty films are shitty films. Has nothing to do with their 3d. And of course people won't be going to see Hobbit BECAUSE of the 3d. But it's going to be in very, very good 3d. And once it gets out what an improvement it is, people will flock to the 3d version no matter what. And conversion IS the enemy of 3d, which in its current incarnation is an important technology.

  • June 2, 2011, 1:14 a.m. CST

    Why are people saying things like that?

    by MoffatBabies

    "It's a tool, it won't make a bad film good" etc etc... Who the FUCK is saying it DOES make a bad film good? You people are pulling half of this stuff out of your asses. Man up.

  • June 2, 2011, 1:27 a.m. CST

    First of all, let's get one thing straight... it's not even "3D"

    by jazzdownunder

    No, not even if it is shot in 3D. "Conversion" or no conversion, what you end up with is a stereoscopic 2D image. If it were 3D you would get a change in perspective from different positions in relation to the content. You could move your head and look around an object in the foreground to see objects that are behind it, that it obscures from view from your current position. Unless and until you can do that, of course it's a gimmick because it is nothing more than a fairground optical illusion. It has novelty value and appeals to those shallow consumers who have to be seen to be consuming the latest and greatest, but it won't stick. It is a fair bet that even the 45% of audiences who "chose" to see Pirates 4 in 3D, did so in many cases only because the 2D screens were sold out and rather than be disappointed or defer gratification, people stumped up the extra for 3D, not because they wanted the 3D but just because they wanted to see the movie in whatever D screen they could find an empty theater seat in front of.

  • June 2, 2011, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Is it worth it?

    by Ciderman

    So few movies are worth the 2D price, how many of those that are then translate into a good 3D experience? I went to see Burtons Alice feature and could see most of it, so dark and murky were the images. Then again, I loved Beowulf, Avatar and Toy Story 3. I saw On Stranger Tides in 2D and it was just fine same with Thor. I'm looking at the Green Lantern trailers though and simply must see it in 3D, even though by usual movie going mate now insists on only seeing 2D films, finds the glasses uncomfortable. Any chance of seeing Speed Racer converted to 3D? That and The Rocketeer?? Please?

  • June 2, 2011, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Is it worth it?

    by Ciderman

    So few movies are worth the 2D price, how many of those that are then translate into a good 3D experience? I went to see Burtons Alice feature and could see most of it, so dark and murky were the images. Then again, I loved Beowulf, Avatar and Toy Story 3. I saw On Stranger Tides in 2D and it was just fine same with Thor. I'm looking at the Green Lantern trailers though and simply must see it in 3D, even though by usual movie going mate now insists on only seeing 2D films, finds the glasses uncomfortable. Any chance of seeing Speed Racer converted to 3D? That and The Rocketeer?? Please?

  • June 2, 2011, 4:40 a.m. CST

    jazzdownunder is right

    by MoffatBabies

    technically, but misguided. The illusion is as close as you'll ever get in scripted materials. At least in a traditional sense. AI will eventually be developed that will respond to your actions and words in a virtual environment that will be truly 3d (BUT will actually still be, by his standards, an illusion since it will be a "stereoscopic" TRICK.. bwahahah.. oh man...). But finally, this "science" that he appears to be spewing is DEEPLY flawed, since if applied to how we perceive reality (with 2 eyes, each perceiving a flat image, but combining to "trick" us into seeing dimensionally), could only be considered a "parlor trick" being played on us by evolution. NONSENSE! Man, seriously, if you're going to attempt to appear smarter than those in the room, come prepared. Especially if you're going to attempt to be as arrogant as say.. me.. while doing so.

  • June 2, 2011, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Mercilessmagic, you are wrong!!!!

    by Arafel

    You said, and I quote, "2D is really 3D, (height + width + time) and 3D is really 4D (H + W + Depth + time). So it is non euclidean 4D. the human eye is not designed to view euclidean 4D, and anyway, we are using the term 3D as defined by the movie industry, not as a mathematical term." 3-D movies are three dimensional! You have height + width + time =3 dimensions! When the 4-D movies start coming out around 2035, you will have Height + Width + Depth + Time which = a 4 dimensional movie experience! The technology is being worked on as I write this, and when that tech is ready look for an all new movie remake of the classic silent film METROPOLIS in 4-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • June 2, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Until they can creat holographic environments

    by hst666

    3D is nothing more than a gimmick that enhances nothing while usually cutting the brightness of the picture.

  • June 2, 2011, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Transformers 3D was amazing

    by JackSlater4

  • June 2, 2011, 10:03 a.m. CST

    I mean it will be amazing, I am not from the future

    by JackSlater4

  • June 2, 2011, 10:08 a.m. CST

    3D is great for R rated movies.

    by JackSlater4

    If the studio would market it right and say "Hey you know what, instead of cutting Die Hard 5 and Terminator 5 to PG-13 to better recoup the budget, lets just shoot a nice hard R in 3D and recoup the budget that way." This is where 3D can really make a difference, but a lot of you brats would rather bootleg a movie like Drive Angry, which was awesome with awesome 3D, than pay money to see it the way it was intended. You're shooting yourselves in the foot.

  • June 2, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST


    by Stalkeye

    "The whole point of gaming is immersion and the re-creation or hightening of reality. Tell you what.. stop gaming. It's wasted on you." I can easily get immersed in a videogame without the need for 3D. What's more important than added visuals, would be a great storyline, (Mass Effect 2) and solid gameplay (GoW series, Crysis 2, CoD Black ops, just to name a few.) and then there's graphics that detail the enviornment of the game itself , it's not just the aestehics, but visually pleasing without the need for "WOW factor 3D Effects." Obviously you sound like some angry plant when endorsing 3D. So no, your points are not valid enough to convince me of it's potentual (atleast , for the present.) "It sickens me a little to say it, but a large number of the posters here are not that sharp and honestly I wish I had a way to ban you from ever seeing anything in 3d. For life." I'll gladly ban myself from 3D, only in return if you would so kindly ban yourself from this thread. Fair enough? And yes, for the record you are a Dick.

  • June 2, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Theaters misusing 3D lenses to show 2D films

    by Ernie

    I didn't know where else to post this but this seemed a relevant conversation. Check out this article: I don't mind 3D but much prefer 2D for a myriad of reasons. It's great to have options for those who want to see 3D movies but not if it is going to affect my ability to watch movies in 2D. I have also noticed 2D digitally projected screenings to be unacceptably dark; They've been dimly lit with poor contrast and even a color cast across the picture at my local AMC theater at Kips Bay in NYC. I thought it was a calibration issue and raised the issue with a supervisor who quickly dismissed my concerns. After reading the aforementioned article I believe the same thing is happening to my local theater and theaters across the country. The article talks about theater chains not replacing the 3D lenses for the proper 2D ones, resulting in a horribly dim lit movie. Who else has experienced this? And what can be done about it? Raising the issue with theater management did nothing and I am writing a letter to AMC theaters but assume little will be done. What can we do to get the word out? Or to send a message? Petition? A boycott day? Class action suit? It seems borderline fraudulent to me. I'm sure filmmakers care about how they're movies are being presented and should know about this. I don't have the forum to raise a stink about the issue but feel people need to know and voice their dissatisfaction. We all care about movies and should get our moneys' worth.

  • June 2, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    arafel, you are too stupid to breath

    by mercilessmagic

    Come on, anyone else want to jump in and make fun of arafel? Just me? Ok. to quote you "3-D movies are three dimensional! You have height + width + time =3 dimensions!" dolt. What about depth perception? idiot. primer for arafel, anyone with a working brain can skip the remainder of this post. 0 dimensions = a point in space 1 dimension = a line 2 dimensions = a plane, a flat surface, hight and width, a flat picture. 3 dimensions = a three dimensional object. utilizing the first 2 dimensions and adding a third. that third could be depth, representing a object such as a sculpture. or that third dimension could be time, representing a flat image that changes over time, such as a movie. (common usage does not refer to the time dimension when discussing movies, but that does not mean the time dimension doesn't exist) 4 dimensions = Hight and width plus 2 additional dimensions. the only diminsions percievable by the human eye are hight and width. two eyes adds the dimension of depth, add a brain and you can percieve motion over time. (common usage does not refer to the time element when discussing films, so you get 3D films) that is it, no more dimensions to be added that could be concievably be detected, unless you want to consider color as a dimension, which it isn't, or relative motion of observer and observed, such as D-box, which strictly speaking is just a extension of the time dimension.

  • June 2, 2011, 4:03 p.m. CST

    3D - Worth It?

    by David H Miller

    Ugh, I hate 3D films. The glasses dim the brightness of the image and that alone is enough to turn me off. On top of that, many of the 3D films I've seen have awful 3D imagery. The film industry may get it right eventually, but it seems like a gimmick to me. Remember quadrophonic sound, SACDs, mini-discs? It seems like the film industry is recreating the errors made by the audio industry. Just because you can make it doesn't make it better.