# Resistance against 3D movies



## Digitalpotato (Aug 4, 2010)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Resistance-Forms-Against-nytimes-2426303374.html?x=0&.v=1

Until there's a 3D movie that actually affects the story or is actually different than the 2D version, and different enough to be worth the extra cost of the ticket...then I'll pass. Seeing Avatar in 3D wouldn't have saved it. What WOULD have saved Avatar was trying ot make it seem more like it was merely INSPIRED by Dances with Wolves, Atlantis, and Fern Gully, rather than an absolute plagirism. (If I can predict the plot within the first 10 minutes, and hadn't seen a plot summary like I did with How to Train your Dragon, then that's *BAD*.)


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 4, 2010)

Pixar movies are worth seeing in 3D, every time


----------



## Evandeskunk (Aug 4, 2010)

I never liked 3-d movies because they are last second and unnecessary.


----------



## Nyloc (Aug 4, 2010)

greg-the-fox said:


> Pixar movies are worth seeing in 3D, every time


 
The furnace scene of Toy Story 3 in 3D? Completely worth it.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 4, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> The furnace scene of Toy Story 3 in 3D? Completely worth it.


 
I was like
D:
D:
*D:*


----------



## NCollieboy (Aug 4, 2010)

After seeing clash of the titans, no moar 3D for me


----------



## Runefox (Aug 4, 2010)

Hey look, optical illusions that were "all the rage" decades ago came back and are now again "all the rage". Hooray for battery-operated glasses that trick your eyes into focusing improperly and cause headaches, eye strain, and in young people, vision damage!

Yeah. 3D sucks. I'm glad filmmakers are realizing this and pushing back against this stupid craze.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 5, 2010)

Either way is fine for me for 3D.  
I been to several, tho the animated ones I usually went with realities who paid for the 3d ones.
I did enjoy How to Train your Dragon in 3d.


----------



## Evandeskunk (Aug 5, 2010)

piranhas 3-D will be pretty terrible =/


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 5, 2010)

greg-the-fox said:


> Pixar movies are worth seeing in 3D, every time


 That's cause unlike most companies they actually know what they are doing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 5, 2010)

â€œIf you canâ€™t make it good, make it 3-D.â€
I so want this on a t-shirt, that would be a awesome t-shirt.


----------



## Evandeskunk (Aug 5, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> â€œIf you canâ€™t make it good, make it 3-D.â€
> I so want this on a t-shirt, that would be a awesome t-shirt.



I'd buy it.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 5, 2010)

My biggest gripe is that instead of actually filming different for 3D (which could lead to some really interesting possibilities), filmmakers resort to "gags". I don't care if something reaches/flies out of the screen, EVERYONE does that.



CannonFodder said:


> â€œIf you canâ€™t make it good, make it 3-D.â€
> I so want this on a t-shirt, that would be a awesome t-shirt.


 
A 3D t-shirt, mind you.


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 5, 2010)

I don't mind 3D if you go with friends.

Coraline was so worth it in 3D!


----------



## Evandeskunk (Aug 5, 2010)

I never watched 3-D since... well, spy kids 3...D


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 5, 2010)

Fenrari said:


> I don't mind 3D if you go with friends.
> 
> Coraline was so worth it in 3D!


 
Yeah 3d films are better with friends than with relatives. Tho I do get free movie and snacks with family.
Still more fun with friends.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 5, 2010)

Because this isn't still a pretty young art or anything. Look, if I'm going to see a movie in the first place, it's because I already know I'm going to be reasonably entertained at worst and feel like I've had a real "experience" of some kind at best. If I can see it on shrooms _without_ it still physically effecting me after the movie and well into the next day, bonus. Seriously, I could give a fuck less that Avatar's story "has been done before" and if anything, I'm glad it's a story people still want to tell and have told, but that's besides the point. Paying a few extra bucks to see the kinds of imagery and scenarios that my lucid dreams often feature, complete with the sense of depth, scale and surrealism I experience is well worth it to me.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 5, 2010)

Why not incite a flamewar?


----------



## Alstor (Aug 5, 2010)

I may not like 3-D, but the main reason I don't like it now is that it's being forced on us. I'm not helping filmmakers to make a forced fad.


----------



## Willow (Aug 5, 2010)

Toy Story 3 was the only movie I've seen in the new 3D. 

Last time I saw a 3D movie, they were still using those red and blue filmed paper glasses. Those things gave you such a headache, and the movies they were used for had really stupid moments in them just to enhance the 3D part. They still do it sorta, but it's not as bad.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 5, 2010)

Gaming is the only area I can truly see 3D making a splash.  Especially in the racing genre where depth of field is extremely important when negotiating turns and figuring out how close you are to another car.

But I've been fortunate to see a few games in 3D.  Killzone 3 in 3D looks AMAZING.  So does GT5.  The problem is I just don't see myself wanting to drop an extra $500+ on top of a normal HDTV to make it 3D capable.

It's a fad and as soon as it runs its course I'm sure the last place it will live on is in gaming devices like the 3DS


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 5, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Because this isn't still a pretty young art or anything. Look, if I'm going to see a movie in the first place, it's because I already know I'm going to be reasonably entertained at worst and feel like I've had a real "experience" of some kind at best. If I can see it on shrooms _without_ it still physically effecting me after the movie and well into the next day, bonus. Seriously, I could give a fuck less that Avatar's story "has been done before" and if anything, I'm glad it's a story people still want to tell and have told, but that's besides the point. Paying a few extra bucks to see the kinds of imagery and scenarios that my lucid dreams often feature, complete with the sense of depth, scale and surrealism I experience is well worth it to me.


 
Not everyone likes movies to just be visual porn and nothing else, btw. If I can predict a movie's plot, without having ever seen the source material or read a plot summary, then that kinda kills it for me.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 5, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Because this isn't still a pretty young art or anything.



Clearly not, because 3D is something that's only just been developed, right? Nobody's ever tried it before, right? Never relegated to the dustbin as a gimmick before, right?


----------



## PoopFairy (Aug 5, 2010)

Evandeskunk said:


> piranhas 3-D will be pretty terrible =/


 I was thinking that when I saw the commercial. Reminds me of the crap movies you get on SiFi and HorrorZone or w/e

I haven't seen *any *3D movies yet. I don't really want to go see a movie in 3D until, like you said, it's worth it.


----------



## RainLyre (Aug 5, 2010)

Fenrari said:


> Coraline was so worth it in 3D!


 T_T Having loved that movie so entirely I really wish I saw it in theaters.

The only really convincing 3D I've seen was in a trailer for Ice Age 3. That's kind of why I'm not sold on it yet; When it's convincing and not just some pop-up book then I could see the appeal.


----------



## 8-bit (Aug 5, 2010)

Evandeskunk said:


> I never watched 3-D since... well, spy kids 3...D


 

You watched that? LOL, I hope the guy who made all those shitty movies dies a horrible death.




PoopFairy said:


> I was thinking that when I saw the commercial.  Reminds me of the crap movies you get on SiFi and HorrorZone or w/e
> 
> I  haven't seen *any *3D movies yet. I don't really want to go see a  movie in 3D until, like you said, it's worth it.




YES! THANK YOU! God, I HAAAAAATE all those shitty movies that take up space on "SYFY" (WTF?)

ANd Toy Story 3 was totally worth it :3


----------



## Evandeskunk (Aug 5, 2010)

8-bit said:


> You watched that? LOL, I hope the guy who made all those shitty movies dies a horrible death.



I was like 6? Idk... And the guy who made that made the mexico trilogy I think.


----------



## 8-bit (Aug 5, 2010)

Evandeskunk said:


> I was like 6? Idk... And the guy who made that made the mexico trilogy I think.


 
He still needs to be nut punched.



Mexico trilogy?


----------



## Evandeskunk (Aug 5, 2010)

8-bit said:


> He still needs to be nut punched.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico trilogy?



Guitar cases with guns.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 5, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Clearly not, because 3D is something that's only just been developed, right? Nobody's ever tried it before, right? Never relegated to the dustbin as a gimmick before, right?


 
Compare background depth like in Coraline or Avatar, to Jaws 3.

You know, stuffing hands out in your face and putting this sort of stuff in just for the sake of showing off the "THREEEE DEEEEEE", vs the characters appearing on the movie, while parts of the backgrounds stick out.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Aug 6, 2010)

I actually love 3D. What perplexes me is the complaints some people have about how it doesn't enhance the story. Of course it doesn't, because it's not supposed to. It's supposed to look pretty, not much more than that. After all, movies are a visual medium, so I think it's pretty important if it looks pretty. But don't get me wrong, I would've hated Avatar even if I saw it in 3D, that movie was fucking terrible and a perfect example that a good story is still move important than big special effects.

I also agree it's getting kinda bad. I think 3D should only be made for animated movies and movies that are heavy on special effects, but now they make it for fucking everything. I don't see how 3D will benefit most of the movies that are coming out now, like the new Saw movie. I don't think there has ever been a single good horror movie in 3D, and there really aren't as much visual effects in those to make the 3D worth it. I've also heard that a new RoboCop movie was gonna be made in 3D, and I honestly don't see how 3D and RoboCop will work.

But I'm still a fond lover of 3D and I hope the technology gets to stay. I actually saw a little bit of Monsters VS Aliens on a 3D TV screen in an electronics store yesterday and I was very pleased with it, and am now planning on maybe saving up for one of those. But 3D is still doing more harm than good right now, I think we should be able to choose for ourselves what dimensions we want to see the movies in, but Hollywood really are shoving this 3D stuff right into our faces.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Gaming is the only area I can truly see 3D making a splash.  Especially in the racing genre where depth of field is extremely important when negotiating turns and figuring out how close you are to another car.
> 
> But I've been fortunate to see a few games in 3D.  Killzone 3 in 3D looks AMAZING.  So does GT5.  The problem is I just don't see myself wanting to drop an extra $500+ on top of a normal HDTV to make it 3D capable.
> 
> It's a fad and as soon as it runs its course I'm sure the last place it will live on is in gaming devices like the 3DS


I agree with this. 3D in video games are a much better idea than 3D in movies in my opinion. I think immersion is one of the most important aspects of gaming, and 3D helps increase that immersion. Killzone 3 alone is a good reason for me to save up money for a 3D TV, Killzone 2 was one of the best-looking games ever and imagining those graphics in 3D makes me feel all warm and fuzzy in the inside.



8-bit said:


> You watched that? LOL, I hope the guy who made all those shitty movies dies a horrible death.


 But Robert Rodriguez is a fucking awesome director, he made Desperado and Sin City and a bunch of other awesome movies. D:


----------



## Zerksis (Aug 6, 2010)

3D movies don't work well for everyone. I went to see a couple of them, thinking it would be okay right? Wrong... Every single time I left with a headache like no other. I'm partially blind in one eye, so I don't see 3D correctly. I also have poor depth perception, but, having been this way all my life, I compensate for it very well.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 6, 2010)

I don't see what the big deal is... If you dislike 3D for whatever reason, then go watch the 2D version. Problem solved!
No-one is forcing you to buy that more expensive ticket, or, heck, a ticket at all.
There are enough ways to watch a movie without going to the cinema (I'm not specifically talking about illegal stuff here)


----------



## Kellie Gator (Aug 6, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> I don't see what the big deal is... If you dislike 3D for whatever reason, then go watch the 2D version. Problem solved!
> No-one is forcing you to buy that more expensive ticket, or, heck, a ticket at all.
> There are enough ways to watch a movie without going to the cinema (I'm not specifically talking about illegal stuff here)


 I think the concern is that this fad is causing filmmakers to put more effort into visual effects than story or whatever. James Cameron's Avatar pretty much proves it.


----------



## TreacleFox (Aug 6, 2010)

I have a 3D TV at my house. o.o


----------



## Carenath (Aug 6, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> Not everyone likes movies to just be visual porn and nothing else, btw. If I can predict a movie's plot, without having ever seen the source material or read a plot summary, then that kinda kills it for me.


 Then how did you enjoy any movie made in the past decade? Just about every movie I've seen so far, is predictable with the same rehashed plots lifted from other movies and books. Really original movies are rare.. some examples (and perhaps exceptions) being: Moon, Magnolia, and Donny Darko.
People bitch about Avatar ripping off Fern Gully and Dances with wolves... Pocahontus did it first. Pocahontus wouldn't be the only unoriginal Disney plot out there the story for The Lion King was ripped out of a Japanese manga. I don't even believe the so-called 'star wars' plot that everyone accused Poulini of ripping off with Eragon, was original to begin with.
I knew how Avatar was going to end, but I also knew how The Matrix was going to end before I'd even seen it, it didn't stop me from enjoying the journey from A to B and the effects along the way.

I like stereoscopic movies, when they're done right, which often seems to work best for movies like How to Train your Dragon and Avatar, where the 3D just added a level of visual eye-candy but was optional, that is, they look just as good in 2D where you still see the sense of dept when watching it. I'm not about to splash out on a new TV just for 3D though.


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Aug 6, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> I don't see what the big deal is... If you dislike 3D for whatever reason, then go watch the 2D version. Problem solved!
> No-one is forcing you to buy that more expensive ticket, or, heck, a ticket at all.
> There are enough ways to watch a movie without going to the cinema (I'm not specifically talking about illegal stuff here)


 
Actually, some theaters don't purchase the 2D version.  When my boyfriend and I went to see How to Train Your Dragon, our theater only had the 3D version even though we planned on 2D(we don't have a car and this is the only one within walking distance).  And that's my main problem with 3D aside from the film makers believing they HAVE to make their movies in that format even though the film itself doesn't really need it.  I just want to option.  If the movie looks like it would be good in 3D (Toy Story 3), then hell, I'll spend the extra for it.  If the movie looks like it's going to be shit in 3D (Clash of the Titans) or doesn't look like it really needs the 3D (Despicable Me), then fuck those glasses that money's going for popcorn.


----------



## JoeStrike (Aug 6, 2010)

The new 3D technology is pretty much perfected - the digital picture is projected at a very high frame rate - like 6x faster than regular films, with the frames alternating for each eye, so you don't need electronically synced-up heavy goggle-glasses.

Clash of the Titans SUCKED because they put it into 3D AFTER the film was completed - and that looks super-shitty compared to films shot that way. (Plus the movie sucked too).

"How to Train Your Dragon"'s 3D was really really really good - lots of flying scenes... a shot of a distant Viking boat on the ocean with the waves in the foreground almost lapping out of the screen... and when the ultra-macro dragon breaks out of the mountain and towers over little tiny vikings running away from him - that shot alone was worth the extra $$ for the glasses. (Then again, I saw it for free at a preview.)

"Despicable Me" takes it more or less easy with the 3D showing-off, but the closing credits have a lot of funny gags with the minions trying to climb out of the screen and into the audience.



Evandeskunk said:


> I never watched 3-D since... well, spy kids 3...D


 
That film had the nerve to make you put the red/blue glasses on to watch a COLOR movie. Guess what? The film looked like shit as a result - not that it was worth watching in the first place.


----------



## Hir (Aug 6, 2010)

Digitalpotato said:


> (If I can predict the plot within the first 10 minutes, and hadn't seen a plot summary like I did with How to Train your Dragon, then that's *BAD*.)


 Well, same thing happened to me and Toy Story 3. I guessed everything would happen ages before it did happen, but it didn't stop me from enjoying it.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 6, 2010)

I've got weird eye conditions that allow me no depth perception, which transfers to these "3D" movies. Therefore, I can sit with the bulky, uncomfortable glasses and watch the same thing as I should be without them, or take them off and see this blurry, offcolor shitpile.

Why do people even advertise this? I want to punch a baby in the ribs every time I see a commercial with that giant 3-D!!! block that comes down out of fucking nowhere.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Aug 6, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> I don't see what the big deal is... If you dislike 3D for whatever reason, then go watch the 2D version. Problem solved!
> No-one is forcing you to buy that more expensive ticket, or, heck, a ticket at all.
> There are enough ways to watch a movie without going to the cinema (I'm not specifically talking about illegal stuff here)


 
If the theatres don't purchase the 2D version, then what are those people like my uncle with a glass eye, Zerksis who's partially blind in one eye, or the one or two people who get massive headaches/other problems from 3D movies supposed to do? Let their girlfriend/wife/significant other/whatever see the 3D movei while they walk into some other movie they probably weren't interested in to see it in 2D? 

Course, there's also the whole concern that people only just make for scenery porn and lag on the stuff like storyline. The only reason Avatar made so damn much was because of the scenery. Remove that, and what does Avatar have to offer?

3D is *NOT* Technicolour or Deep Focus and should *NOT* be pushed on or become an unwritten requirement like technocolour, talkies, HD, etc were.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Aug 6, 2010)

I wear glasses so the discomfort of wearing glasses on glasses isn't worth the brief 10minutes of being impressed and ultimately ignoring the effects altogether(like I did with Avatar)


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 6, 2010)

I want to see a retrograde or "dolly" zoom in 3D like in this scene of Jaws at 3:34 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcjjB0OOu9Y
I don't know if it's possible in 3D though, but it would totally make me cream my pants


----------



## Winter (Aug 6, 2010)

Personally I hope they keep making 2D things. With only one good eye, seeing a 3D movie would be a waste of money for me.


----------

