3D MOVIES! (Or, you know, not.)

Interesting article in the times discussing the fact that Hollywood has been preparing to pump out product in 3D as the potential savior of the cinema, but the theaters haven’t really hopped on board.

And there’s supposedly a wave of 3D TVs following behind. But again, I’m not sure anyone is really that excited about it.

I had been hearing some buzz about it, especially in the case of Cameron’s Avatar, but I’d had no idea they’d made such a big bet. Seems kind of wacky. Especially since Hollywood has tried to go down this road before and failed.

I mean, it’s obviously better now than the old red and green stuff, but you still have to wear special glasses.

Is this going to be another bust, or am I missing something?

the 3d is a lot better than any of the older processes, but it’s still not great.

but i’ve only seen 3d animation, nothing live action so that’s a bit easier to process. i doubt i’ll see the MBV movie.

I saw the Bold 3D movie and Fly Me to the Moon 3D in the past month and thoroughly enjoyed the 3D aspects of them.

It does make for a totally different experience than I can get at home right now, which is sorely needed for theatres I think. I mean, I can get a better movie watching experience from home with my surround sound setup and 50" plasma than I can at the movie theatre in most cases. So theatres need to do something.

Gimmick.

i agree

i can’t imagine a 3d rom com

edit: well i CAN just not a studio backed one

Nothing that involves putting on a set of glasses is ever really gonna catch on much. Audiences are gonna be annoyed at the inconvenience. Someone will always have problems with the 3D. As a person with glasses I love the 3D stuff at Disney and Universal, but it’s also only like ten minutes long, so the glasses over my glasses don’t have the chance to start bugging the shit out of me. And on the theatrical side, those glasses are something they have to distribute at the start of every movie and collect at the end and clean between. It’s a whole lot of extra work and I just can’t see it happening.

The same goes for at home. Who really wants to put on a set of 3D glasses and kick back to watch some TV?

I have enjoyed some 3D movies recently, but those were all animated. When I went to see the 5th Harry Potter movie in IMAX and they had a 3D scene, I just found it distracting and annoying.

The biggest problem my wife and I have going to the cinema is other people. Nowadays, there are only one or two filmmakers that can get us out of our den. We didn’t go at all this past year.

I’m completely blown away by current 3D movie technology - it’s science fiction come true for someone given the sham 3D tech of the 1950s (Creature from the Black Lagoon) and 1980s (Jaws 3D - and one of the Friday 13s).

That and true IMAX (like portions of the Dark Knight, which were filmed in a different aspect ratio) definitely make me far more likely to see a “blockbuster action” film in a theatre.

Let me know when they develop Baby Disabling Lasers.

I hope they start pushing a new wave of Smell-o-Vision technology next.

I can’t see the 3D in 3D movies. However, I do see a blur across the screen during the 3D parts of the movie (PLEASE PUT ON YOUR 3D GLASSES NOW).

Honestly, I hope it fails. This is just megacorporations coming together to try and push technology on us that we don’t need so they can sell more shit. Next thing you know, congress is going to set a 3D transition date in 10 years.

The problem is these companies get addicted to what are essentially the occasional sales boom when people change formats. Then when sales go down, they get all pissy, and try to force their next generation of crap on us. HD adoption still isn’t particularly fast and that’s with government breathing down our necks on their behalf.

I’m sure that My Bloody Valentine 3D will be the spark that sets this craze ablaze.

Crap. I can’t see the 3D either because I have an eye problem. Will I still be able to watch these movies in 2d or will they be all blurry? What do they look like without the glasses on? That’s what they’ll look like for me.

Whether you can see them or not, the only 3D movie I watched in 2D was unsettling to watch. The compositions don’t necessarily translate, so you can get very weird perspectives that are more of a strain to look at rather than being appealing just so they can highlight the 3D-ness of it. I actually think 3D will be harmful to the medium, since I’m not sure how 3D could enhance narrative devices of film.

i would love if someone could strike a 3d print of Dial M for Murder

That’s the only one I’d actually like to see. Hitchcock was hit and miss even in 2D though. Handing any of the currently yawn inducing high profile directors a 3D flick today isn’t really going to give us any idea of the 3D’s potential, which is likely nil.

Yeah, fuck that damned multinational National Geographic.

I have to agree. I saw U2 3D, and it was completely mesmerizing; when I watch a normal concert film now, I find myself pretty let down.

Oh I’m sorry, were these 3D TVs going to be made in American garages? Other companies may hop on the bandwagon because the curiosity may give them a temporary bump when their brand is mostly inconsequential (you know like National Geographic), but they aren’t the force behind 3D.

Lazy eye? I have a lazy eye, but it’s not clear to me that’s what’s causing the problem with 3D (although I have suspected it might be).