Your thoughts on 3-D?

[bicker]

And it was absolutely not garbage picture quality in the slightest.

How do you figure? The way I remember it, they had none of the superlative filming equipment and special effects technology that we have today. Nothing made back then could possibly have had the same picture quality that something made today could have. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, when we talk about picture quality.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

I'm a big fan of technology and I think when you can take something that's good and make it better, that's a good thing.

That being said, I haven't seen anything in 3D. I can't sit there that long with a second pair of glasses on. And as much as I enjoy special effects, etc I'm a big fan of the story itself and my personal preference (for most movies) is that 3D isn't going to enhance what I enjoy.

I can't really imagine that filmmakers would choose to make a lot of movies in 3D only, because that doesn't translate very well to DVD sales. I think a lot of people who saw Avatar in 3D and loved it are going to be disappointed when it comes on on DVD. I wasn't a huge fan of the story.

All that becomes a moot point if/when Star Wars is re-released in 3D. I'll be there with bells and weird glasses on

 

[lacrosse_lady72]

IMAX... yes.

3D... for the most part no.

Last one I saw in 3D was Toy Story 1&2 and not much changed about it and that was irritating, reminded me to never see a cartoon/animated movie in 3D.

I'm with you on HP not being in 3D. Not that I would avoid it but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it either.

I just hope this is a passing trend and they can be over it soon.

ETA: Coraline was the only movie I found to be better in 3D.

 

[kafitty]

i enjoy 3D!

but i have to really want to see the movie.

well, in general, if i'm going to see it in theaters, it's because i really want to see it soon, otherwise i'll wait. So to pay the little extra and put in a little more travel time to see it in 3D is worth it, for me.

 

[browneyes106]

I'm ok with 3-D/Real D movies. The first one I saw in theaters was My Bloody Valentine last year and it effects were really cool. I saw Avatar last weekend and it was probably the best 3-D movie I saw. I also read that James Cameron plans to have Titanic converted 3D and it will be released in theaters next year. 3D is starting to really grow in popularity.

 

[teacherforhi]

I am just curious, and I don't mean this rudely, but those of you who say it gives you a headache etc, have you seen any of the new Digital 3d movies in the theater? I get very easily nauseated, etc by visual things, but not at all by the new 3d, it's truly amazing!!! The old red/blue glasses, those were awful, but this is a completely different technology and it's so much better.

I actually prefer the red and blue ones. For some reason, I could see the 3D better. (I am totally ready to admit that my eyesight may have gotten worse.)

I can't see the 3D effects very well--it's as if I get a glimpse of it, but nothing is really popping for me. Since I actually like to go to the movies, I'll be upset if they only go to 3D. I'm not paying extra for something I can't see.

 

[beattyfamily]

I used to be fine with 3-D movies UNTIL they started charging more for it!!!

Now I will never ever go see a 3-D movie again. It's just the principle of it.

The last one was Ice Age 3. That's when I learned that the tickets were $3. extra.

 

[GaSleepingBeautyFan]

I much prefer the normal version of movies. My kids don't like 3-D movies and want to see them in regular version.

I did watch Disney's a Christmas Carol in 3-D by myself and wasn't impressed. But that might have been the movie itself. LOL

 

[JoMarie]

Personally, I hate all this 3D hoopla. My eyesight, when it comes to 3D, is hit or miss. For some reason, I either see it or I don't. I've decided it's just because my eyes like to screw around with me. I saw Avatar last week in 3D and it was the first time I was able to watch the whole thing without a migraine.

I went to see Toy Story in 3D in October (which I got CARDED for, but that's a different story) and it looked perfectly normal. A lot of the times it just looks like a regular movie to me, like the blurry-ness goes away but it's not popping out at me. Oh well, I'll still go and see HP in 3D and risk the headache, hopefully it'll be like Avatar and be perfect.

 

[bicker]

Well, keep in mind a fewe distinctions: Avatar, as we've said, is utterly top-notch state-of-the-art technology. It is the future of 3D. By contrast, Toy Story is older technology but it is an animated feature, and simply doesn't have the detail that a live action film would offer. Animation in 3D has always been easier to accomplish than live-action. Compare both to that short sequence in the last Harry Potter film. It was the latest and greatest available at the time, but still, at this point, we can call it old technology. And it was live action, so it had the challenges to 3D that Toy Story didn't. I myself didn't really enjoy that sequence in the Harry Potter film.

So three different cases: New 3D, old 3D with animation, and old 3D with live action. I wouldn't judge new 3D based on past experiences with old 3D with live action. I wouldn't even judge it based on past experiences with old 3D with animation, though that's a closer comparison. The biggest deal about Avatar is the same big deal that we had with Titantic -- this guy, James Cameron, has radically uplifted the technology of film production.

When we finally look back on Cameron's life and career, I think we're going to be able to see clearly how he has (perhaps under the covers or behind the scenes) contributed more to the production of filmed entertainment than Walt Disney did (I know -- sacrilege! ). And unlike Disney, who sometimes got credit, and patents, for the work of great people who worked for him (it was actually Ub Iwerks who invented the multi-plane camera, and other Disney folks, like William Garity, who improved it), Cameron is the genius himself -- collaborator, for sure, but he's not just the idea-man -- he is also the scientist and engineer as well. And not just for this new 3D technology (known as the "fusion" camera, I believe), but also going back to Titanic, The Abyss, Terminator, and some of his documentaries, for fostering the advancement of underwater filming and remote-vehicle control technology.

And that's the story here: Just like Walt Disney changed the nature of animation with technological breakthroughs such as Snow White, Avatar, aside from its own entertainment value, represents a similarly (or more) significant technological breakthrough in entertainment. The 3D technology that Cameron has perfected, with Avatar, is no more a "fad" than Disney's multi-plane camera was.