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

More lame 3D pimpage. This is just stupid.

I still need to get my glasses to see Chuck in 3D this coming Monday.

And dangerous, since it’s just going to confuse people about the technology at a time they’re trying to explain true “next-gen” 3D movies.

This sucks, because it doesn’t use the same type of glasses I already have, and like, from MBV3d.

Not only that, but it’s that same blue/whatever cheap paper eyeglass design as the old days.

Unless the actual 3d effect blows the RealD effect away, which I doubt it will, I think this is just a stunt.

Of course it’s just a stunt, but they are trying to prep people for the idea of 3D again. Just look at the way the hosts were supposed to preface so they like 3D, etc. It’s a sales pitch masquerading as a news report. Andrew’s right though, they may end up confusing people more than helping their cause.

Question that came up in the Friday the 13th Thread:

How does the gore in MBV 3D compare to other modern horror movies? Is it par for the course these days, or was it an example of some fairly extreme, graphic violence? How does it compare to other “R” horror films like Friday the 13th?

It falls on the graphic side.

It is not as extreme as the old days(the days of the original MBV and F13th), but not for lack of trying. I just don’t think movies like that will be allowed wide theatrical release anymore- straight to dvd for those guys.

It’s well past Hostel/Saw type movies, which to be honest are not that graphic.

edit: I’d rank them as such, for the sake of providing a set standard

Inside(French movie)- similar in graphic gore level to older Romero films/original F13th/etc, ie old school level gore. You’ll note no wide theatrical release in this country.

New F13th/MBV3d- New school gore at a level of Scream type movie, ie maybe one ‘money shot’ of high level gore with mostly midlevel gore otherwise.

Saw/Hostel- Bloody gore more like an over the top action movie would have, impact comes more from torture aspect rather than gore itself.

Asian horror/American remakes- Borderline PG-13/R rated gore, usually a ‘money shot’ of midlevel gore at most, otherwise really just jump scares with some blood.

Hope this helps

I feel that the above post deserves its own thread.

This was mentioned a couple times already, but I was wondering if anybody knew how/why the 3d effect may or may not work for different people?

I saw coraline 3D a couple weeks ago, and it was the first movie I’ve seen with the new 3d technologies (RealD I think), which apparently uses clockwise / counter clockwise polarized light to differentiate the eyes.
Most of the movie was fine, but the scenes where things come out of the screen at you, didn’t really work. I just sort of saw blurriness, and thought “oh, I guess that’s supposed to be in 3d then”. I have pretty terrible eyes and wear contacts, although I’m not sure if that matters. Am I just SOL with watching 3D movies? Or is it a thing I can learn to process the right way, like those Magic Eye things? (which I can’t do either).

Any science articles on this? I’d like to read about the polarization and if they need special screens, what those are doing.

I’m not sure what kind of info you’re looking for, everything I know was just from the wikipedia article.

I just don’t remember much from my optics class. Is the 45 degree polarization from “traditional methods” what gives each of the two images a red and blue tint?

Did they need special screens to preserve the circular polarization for RealD?

I’m not a physicist, but my understanding is:
The “traditional” red and blue tinted glasses are an older tech than the polarized light, it just uses the color filters to determine what each eye sees. I think that the “3d” super bowl ad used a variation of this, which is why viewing them without 3d glasses showed a blue double image.

According to the wikipedia article, the 45 degree polarization required 2 projectors, and was prone to breaking if you tilted your head (rotating the polarized lenses essentially switching the eyes, so that the left eye sees the right eye’s intended image.)

The rotationally polarized lenses apparently only use 1 projector which has to run faster than a regular projector to display the multiple images properly, and wouldn’t be prone to the tilting problem since there’s no way to reverse the rotation of the lenses by misusing them.

As far as I know none of them require special screens or anything, but again, I know only what I’ve learned from the intarwebs.

Gotcha. I guess I got confused when they kept mentioning having to convert theaters to use RealD, and my own vague recollection of how light polarization changes when reflected, thinking maybe they needed a special screen to preserve the circular polarization, or it all just factors out. Maybe it’s just the cameras.

I saw Coraline as well and had the same problem. 3D worked for me with those cheap red/blue glasses though. I have a lazy right eye.

I saw Coraline last night in 3D, and I’ve got say that I wasn’t that impressed.

The glasses are bit of a pain in the ass. I enjoyed the effects at first, but after a while it just vanishes, or sort of fades into the background. Certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that’s going to save the theatre experience.

I was actually very impressed with the 3d in Coraline… it was a subtle effect for the most part, some really nice depth when needed, and the flying at your face stuff was reserved only for specific action or throwaway content. The operative word to making it work is restraint. I agree with the sentiment that people will always be annoyed with encumbering gear, and that the upcharge for the effect gets prohibitive (esp. for families at $12.50 a pop), but I think it’s really neat.

I wish I had a similar thing for playing flight sims… it would go a really long way in identifying planes against the background terrain. It’s not like I’m not already wearing headphones+mike, trackIR, leather jacket goggles and scarf. Um.

You know, I’ve seen Coraline in 3D at two different theaters, and had VASTLY different experiences. The first was at a brand new Rave Motion Pictures that had opened in the last 6 months, and the second was at a different theater in a different state. The first time I saw it everything was crisp and amazing, and it was an incredibly enthralling movie. The second time, at another theater, some of the 3D effects were blurry, and I had trouble reading text on 3D things like the seeds in the window, etc.

I really think YMMV on the 3D experience… I’m absolutely not seeing a 3D movie at a theater other than the first one I went to.

More advice: The first time, I was not wearing vision correction, and my weak eye started to ache. The second time, I was wearing my prescription, and it was just fine.

Under the Sea is a great Imax 3D film if you want to sample the technology.

Our long cinematic nightmare may finally be coming to an end.

“We’re looking forward to playing fewer 3-D versions of films and more 2-D versions,” Foster added, mentioning that Warner Bros. “Blade Runner 2049” will be shown in 2-D exclusively at IMAX theaters when it opens in October.