Are 3D Movies Really That Great

[rockerrockstar]

Are 3D Movies Really That Great?

I heard all this talk about how Avatar 3D was so great and that since it did so well in the movie theaters that all these other movies are now coming out 3D. Well I think that 3D sucks. It is a cool gimic but it makes me sea sick or sick just like when I am trying to play a choppy 3d video game. It could be a future good thing but the technology is not good enough yet for me to watch a movie. I saw Avatar in 2d first and thought it was a really great movie. So good in fact that I went back to watch in 3D to see what the hype was about. I watched and was amused with the 3d stuff but then started to feel sick with in minutes. I had to get up and leave and ask for a refund. I could not enjoy the movie because of that and I felt that the 3D was more of a distraction from the movie than anything. Also, the 3D made the movie darker. In 2D it was much brighter and the colors showed up nicer.

I think Avatar was not sucessful because of the 3D. It was a good movie and James Camorn was a part of the reason besides the actors. The CGI was great too. The plot was some what predictable and not really unique except for the twist in the end. It was basically Dances With Wolves or the Last Samurai or Pocahontas. It was a good action movie. I went back and watched it for the third time in 2D.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I heard all this talk about how Avatar 3D was so great and that since it did so well in the movie theaters that all these other movies are now coming out 3D. Well I think that 3D sucks. It is a cool gimic but it makes me sea sick or sick just like when I am trying to play a choppy 3d video game. It could be a future good thing but the technology is not good enough yet for me to watch a movie. I saw Avatar in 2d first and thought it was a really great movie. So good in fact that I went back to watch in 3D to see what the hype was about. I watched and was amused with the 3d stuff but then started to feel sick with in minutes. I had to get up and leave and ask for a refund. I could not enjoy the movie because of that and I felt that the 3D was more of a distraction from the movie than anything. Also, the 3D made the movie darker. In 2D it was much brighter and the colors showed up nicer.

I think Avatar was not sucessful because of the 3D. It was a good movie and James Camorn was a part of the reason besides the actors. The CGI was great too. The plot was some what predictable and not really unique except for the twist in the end. It was a good action movie. I went back and watched it for the third time in 2D.

Thank you! So many people keep telling me "Avatar" was successful because of the 3D. No, it's an awesome movie.

That sucks that you get sick with the 3D. I have two friends who suffer from the same problem. Like you, within minutes, they feel sick to their stomach. To me, I can honestly say that it just feels natural. To me, it's like they cut a whole in the wall of the theater, and I'm watchng something that's actually there.

With "Avatar", that is. I'm yet to see a live-action movie that's done 3D convincingly. "Up", "Beauwulf", "Monsters vs. Aliens", and "Bolt" all looked really good, and "Avatar" is practically an animated movie itself. Is this a medium that only works for animated movies? I'm curious to see if "Pirhana" looks any good. I'm sure the movie will suck, but it was shot with Cameron's super-fancy 3D camera system.

 

[rockerrockstar]

re

Good question I wonder how an all action movie would work with no CGI using the 3D cameras. Not sure if that works. Seems to be more for CGI 3D images. Wait and see. I think they may be able to smooth out the 3D in the future so I don't get sick. But still debatable if the 3D distracts from the movie. Does it really help you enjoy the movie more or less? That is something to figure out for your self.

I hear that 3D TVs are on the way. They may be showing up later this year if the internet is correct. I think you still need the glasses to view though. Not sure if you will need a speacial player too. Maybe even tv will be broadcast with 3d. I believe Sports would be first to try it or maybe movie channels.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Good question I wonder how an all action movie would work with no CGI using the 3D cameras. Not sure if that works. Seems to be more for CGI 3D images. Wait and see. I think they may be able to smooth out the 3D in the future so I don't get sick. But still debatable if the 3D distracts from the movie. Does it really help you enjoy the movie more or less? That is something to figure out for your self.

I hear that 3D TVs are on the way. They may be showing up later this year if the internet is correct. I think you still need the glasses to view though. Not sure if you will need a speacial player too. Maybe even tv will be broadcast with 3d. I believe Sports would be first to try it or maybe movie channels.

I think you're right about whether they add or detract -- the answer seems to be (at least so far), very personal. For me, it adds, definitely. In the movies I mentioned, there aren't really any gimmicky objects-flying-at-you kind of scenes; the 3D is only there to add texture. I can honestly say that I forget that I'm watching a movie in 3D. After a few minutes, it just feels like that's how it's supposed to be. In my opinion, the end effect is that it helps you more easily suspend disbelief.

Plus, it helps if you're super stoned.

3D TVs are already here. Personally, I'm not too excited about them. Yes, you have to wear glasses. And, they aren't like the glasses that you wear in the theater (which are cheap). The glasses you wear for your TV are actually synced to your TV, remotely, and therefore expensive. ESPN began testing shooting football games in 3D last year, and they're expanding their efforts this coming season. In order to watch a movie in 3D, you need a Blu-Ray player. I'm sure it'll all look cool, but I don't want to be wearing glasses in my house. I know I'm being illogical, but I just feel like different rules apply for theaters and houses. In my house, I wanna sit in my boxers, beer in hand, yadda yadda, and I ain't puttin on no glasses. Plus, if I'm watching a football game with friends, I have to buy expensive glasses for everybody? Malarchy!

 

[Padnar]

yeah , another thing the cost is too high and a average filmmaker cannot make a film
padma

 

[niik000]

people knock 3d down allot but i think it has potential to have artistic merit, avatar really used it to add another dimension to the composition of the shots rather than as stchick. I would make a 3d film if i had access to the technology.

 

[M1chae1]

Avatar was great. Up was great...

If the movie is crafted well, and built from the ground up for 3D...it can be great.

 

[Wombat]

If the movie is crafted well, and built from the ground up for 3D...it can be great.

Agreed. It's just an extension of the medium. It can be done well, and it can be done godawfully.

As for whether or not it's the future... who knows? I just don't see the two coexisting very well for any extended period.

 

[TJones05]

I might be in the minority, but I'm not a big fan of 3D. I've seen a decent number of 3D films and outside of the animated ones, the only that I thought was worth it was Avatar. It takes a lot of time and effort (something that Hollywood often isn't willing to do) to create a live action 3D film that actually incorporates the 3D into the story and goes beyond just having things jump out at the audience.

I'm not saying that there will never be any good 3D movies, I just think that they'll be few and far between. Overall, I can't see 3D being anything more than a gimmick that will lead to other things like 4D, shaking chairs, etc...