Your thoughts on 3-D?

[Jennasis]

Is Hollywood overdoing it? Or do you like seeing films in 3-D? Seems like everything these days is going three-dimensional and I'm wondering if it's the wave of the future or an over-done passing fad. In case you were wondering what prompted my queery...my favorite movie-news site aintitcool.com is reporting that two films I am beyond jazzed about seeing; "Clash of the Titans" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" are both going to be released in 3-D.

Titans, fine. Harry Potter? Eh...no. the other films aren't in 3-D and I think the feel of all 7...I mean EIGHT flicks should be pretty similar.

What do YOU think?

 

[NeverlandClub23]

I've only seen maybe two movies in 3-D (the last one being the Christmas Carol movie with Jim Carrey). I'm not really into them but I wish our IMAX theater would play movies in just regular non-3D. I love how the seats are set up to where you can't even see the person in front of you and the screen is so big.

Also, I think it's hard if you want to go see a movie in non 3D if the movie's been out awhile. This past weekend I went to see Avatar and had to check 4 different movie theaters until I found one that wasn't playing it in 3D. Apparently non-3D is the first to go as all of the movie theaters were playing in both a month or two ago.

I hated wearing the goggle/glasses things on my face the whole time too. But I know a lot of people enjoy them.

 

[legalsea]

Is Hollywood overdoing it? Or do you like seeing films in 3-D? Seems like everything these days is going three-dimensional and I'm wondering if it's the wave of the future or an over-done passing fad. In case you were wondering what prompted my queery...my favorite movie-news site aintitcool.com is reporting that two films I am beyond jazzed about seeing; "Clash of the Titans" and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" are both going to be released in 3-D.

Titans, fine. Harry Potter? Eh...no. the other films aren't in 3-D and I think the feel of all 7...I mean EIGHT flicks should be pretty similar.

What do YOU think?

I must say, my wife and I were very, very impressed with the 3-D effect of Avatar. I would like to see more movies in this format.

 

[ChrisFL]

It's the one thing that (currently, for another year at least) Hollywood can say you can get in the theater that you can't get at home.

 

[jen0610]

We don't go to the movie if it's in 3-D. Not worth the extra $3.00 each time to "rent" the glasses. We are a family of 4 and that additional cost would keep us away.

If the Harry Potter people want to change their format in the middle of the series, they won't be getting any more money from this family. I don't care how much the kids "need" to see the final 3 movies, it won't happen.

 

[Handbag Lady]

I think it depends on the film makers and their vision. If a film is created knowing it is going to be released in 3D, it helps the art director create a better world.

If a film is made and then they go, "OH, yeah, let's create a 3D version!" then the end result won't be as good or as whole as the creators could have made it.

 

[Gabes_mommy]

I have never been a 3D fan, but DH and I saw Avatar in 3D this weekend and I liked it. The effect wasn't overwhelming and the glasses were sunglass style and they were lightweight and comfortable. I think Avatar converted me to a 3D fan.

 

[bicker]

For many people, Avatar proved definitively that there is almost always value in producing action/adventure/scifi features for 3D. You can always flatten 3D to 2D, with no appreciable compromise, such as if you want all the Harry Potter films in 2D for your DVD collection.

 

[Brocktoon]

I think 3-D tech has hit the point where it's no longer a passing fad. Avatar's use of 3-D made me a believer. But, at the same time, Hollywood is definately in the process of overdoing it. Currently the only good way to get people into the theater is through the 3-D, which becomes a gimmick as many movies probably won't gain much from the tech.

We're getting into an ugly cycle where studios will want to add 3-D to get people into the seats and charge more money. 3-D flicks cost more to make, so now the studios will pressure productions to be 'safer' all ages sequels ensuring bigger box-office. Directors and producers will have much less control due to the huge studio investements, so we could all be looking forward to years of bland sequels and licensed properties.

3-D in the home will also be pushed heavily as ESPN and Discovery are already working on 3-D channels. It might not be bad for a movie or two, but really how many people want to sit down in thier home and strap on a set of goggles with the friends an family everytime they want to watch TV. And if you don't have a straight on view of the TV, it won't work properly. But, the electronics manufacturers will push the tech hard as it means more money upgrading home theater systems. I still think Blu-Ray is overkill for most people, but the manufacturers are pushing it like everyone needs it. I know a lot of people running Blu-Ray through small HD systems with stereo sound. Trust me, they're getting no advantage over an upscaled DVD at that point. But they're certain the picture is so much better

So in the end, yes 3-D coupled with IMAX is potentially game changing for movie theaters and attendance given the right movie MADE for the tech. But Hollywood and home electronics manuf. will probably just turn it into another gimmick to push sales.

My most anticipated 3-D flick has to be TRON Legacy ... if there was ever a movie that screamed for digital 3-D, that would be it

 

[Jennasis]

For many people, Avatar proved definitively that there is almost always value in producing action/adventure/scifi features for 3D. You can always flatten 3D to 2D, with no appreciable compromise, such as if you want all the Harry Potter films in 2D for your DVD collection.

Don't get me wrong. If HP is released in 3-D, I will go and see it in the theatre anyway. I just don't think it needs to be in 3-D. I also agree with the poster who said the expense of the glasses is silly. You should be able to bring your old pair of glasses and only buy new if you don't have a pair.

 

[Jenvenza]

I saw Avatar in 3-D, and while I enjoyed it, I think I would have enjoyed it just as much if it wasnt in 3-D. The movie was wonderful, but I wasnt blown away by the 3-D parts.

 

[BellvilleDad]

3D is coming home:

Link

While some manufacturers, such as Mitsubishi, Phillips, Samsung, and Sharp, have already begun selling 3D-ready TVs, the top four manufacturers plan to have new, advanced 3D TVs on sale toward the end of 2009 and into 2010.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I saw they were looking to do this for HP. I think it's fine as long as theater goers can opt in or out. If they only do 3 D I'd have to skip it, and that would be terrible because I LOVE HP. Still no matter how much I love a franchise I won't watch it in 3-D, why on earth would I spend $40 for my family to go see a film that would give me a mind numbing migraine.
just the thought of it makes me

I saw Avatar in 2 D and was perfectly content.

 

[elgerber]

I personally love movies in 3d. I think it adds depth to the picture. It's not about things popping up in your face, it's about things truly looking 3 dimensional. I always opt for the 3d if I have a choice. My family is very excited that they are doing HP in 3d.
I have yet to see a movie that is only offered in 3d, so anyone that doesn't want it, doesn't have it see it that way.

 

[FireDancer]

It is nice and all but I see it as a ploy to get us into a theater for $11 instead of just watching it at home for 99 cents. While I do like the movies they are not worth the extra money to me so I will just wait and watch the movie for much less money at home. Many years I see zero or one movie in a theater because the price is no longer worth it to me.

 

[KramBerries]

I was surprised when we showed up at a movie and missed the 3-D time that my kids and their friends were all glad. They much preferred not 3-D movies. This was a group of 7-12 year old boys.

I think it is like Quadrophonic sound was in the '70s. It was a pretty cool niche, but not a mainstream thing. It took a long time before surround sound became accepted as normal. I suspect that 3-D will be a niche for a long time.

 

[SamRoc]

I must say, my wife and I were very, very impressed with the 3-D effect of Avatar. I would like to see more movies in this format.

I agree with you! Took my dh Sunday for his birthday to see it on the IMAX and our family loved the 3d effects. I was a little worried at first as i heard you could get a little sick at first but i was fine during the whole movie.

 

[chisnpeke]

I just have a question. I have not seen any movie in 3-D but if a movie is ONLY released in 3-D and you pay the 3-D price but choose not to wear the glasses does it look ok? Would it be able to be watched like a normal movie?

I hope that makes sense. Reason I ask is because there are a couple movies that are being released in the next couple of years in 3-D to the theaters as a re-release. I don't know if they will be released only as a 3-D version or not though so I am just wondering.

 

[Jennasis]

I just have a question. I have not seen any movie in 3-D but if a movie is ONLY released in 3-D and you pay the 3-D price but choose not to wear the glasses does it look ok? Would it be able to be watched like a normal movie?

I hope that makes sense. Reason I ask is because there are a couple movies that are being released in the next couple of years in 3-D to the theaters as a re-release. I don't know if they will be released only as a 3-D version or not though so I am just wondering.

nope. Without the glasses it looks blurry.

 

[wvjules]

Are there any movies that have been, or are going to be, released in 3-D only? I really don't see what the issue is. If you don't like 3-D then see the non 3-D version.

We saw Avatar in 3-D and loved it. I definately think the extra money was worth it for that movie.