3D TV and Movies

[MottZilla]

What do you guys think about the "3D" trend that has been going on for awhile? Both the 3D TVs and 3D Bluray Movies, as well as theaters showing 3D movies.

I absolutely hate this trend. I want it to go back to hell where it came from. From what I saw with 3D TV and a 3D Bluray movie, it's just like a nifty trick. But watching a full length film in it? No thanks. More money for it? I don't think so.

The reason I'm even more pissed at this trend currently is I would like to see the new Resident Evil movie but I don't want any 3D bullshit. But the theater that I normally go to does not have a regular showing.

[Pineconn]

I haven't been convinced regarding glasses-required 3D. I honestly have no wish to wear glasses ever again—seriously, after switching to contacts from eyeglasses several years ago, I hate them. Now, that said, I am super excited for the Nintendo 3DS. A big factor is that I don't even have a DS to begin with, but everyone has been impressed with the 3DS. I will be camping out overnight for this.

I should ask, are you going to get a 3DS and embrace the 3D?

[Beldaran]

No interest whatsoever, hatred or otherwise.

[MottZilla]

I do plan to get the 3DS, but only because it's an upgrade hardware wise and that you can totally turn off the 3D effect.

Beldaran, I'm glad to see our apathy toward 3D. I was like that until they really seemed to try to put it on you to get more money.

[AtmaWeapon]

It's a gimmick. Like any gimmick, there are going to be directors who know how to use it well and can make a better movie using the gimmick. Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't understand this and thinks that the gimmick sells movies so it is needlessly repeated over and over again even in movies where critics and fans agree the gimmick is a detractor. Like motion controls, or I guess more appropriately dual-screened handhelds. Some games use the DS very well and I can't imagine playing them on a one-screen device or without a touchscreen. A few ports of single-screen games helped reduce subscreen tedium by putting very useful status displays on the second screen. Most games wouldn't be any worse on a single-screen device; it's not like we haven't been playing on one TV at a time for decades.

The problem with 3D is no one has really figured out how to enhance a film with it. It's not compelling to pay $3-$5 more for a movie ticket just because in post-production the director made a scene look like 3D Paper Mario. Avatar was compelling but I don't think the 2D presentation would suffer. The only movie I can think of that might be missing something in 2D is Coraline; that may be because at the time few movies were being made in 3D and novelty boosted it from a 3-star film to a 4-star one.

I don't like the glasses. In theaters, they reduce the brightness and I can't fathom how a dark movie like Tron is going to be viewable. The glasses are bulky and heavy; they don't fit well over my current glasses and the weight makes my ears sore after a film. On the home front, they're bulky, heavy, and expensive.

I'm excited about the 3DS, but more because it seems like it's a very powerful handheld machine. The 3D effects might enhance games, but I'm more interested in playing PS2-quality and better games than I am with seeing Mario's nose stick out of the screen. I must admit that the prospect of 3D without glasses is more compelling to me, but it's still not the selling point.

[vegeta1215]

3D is a gimmick. It's just another reason to jack up prices and sell new electronics. As for movies, I think it's okay so long as it's not forced. (which is another excuse to jack up already high prices). The only movie I've seen in 3D is Pixar's Up!, but it was a different kind of 3D. Things didn't pop out in your face or anything, but the effect did gave this sense of depth and fullness that made an already gorgeous movie even better.

I'm curious about the Nintendo 3DS. No games that have been announced are really of interest to me except the new Paper Mario though. I love those games. But it doesn't even have to be in 3D to have my interest.

[SUCCESSOR]

3D movies are cool by me. It's a gimmick but I think it will get bigger and cheaper. But for me I will wait till better methods are more common. I hate those awful glasses. They give me a headache and motion sickness. 90 minutes in those is hell.

[bigjoe]

I've not seen it first hand, but I imagine the effect is more interesting in 3d games or applications in which the depth is preprocessed. I'd like to see how a game looks on a 120hz monitor with NVidia's 3d vision kit. I will not be able to give a worthwhile opinion until then.

[Anthus]

I never entirely jumped on the "I fucking hate 3D bandwagon". For movies, I think it is fine. I actually just saw RE: Afterlife yesterday in 3D, and it was pretty cool (visually speaking; the rest of the movie was just absurd, but not bad). I wear glasses, and at first, I did not like wearing them over my glasses. The theaters here use the "RealD" glasses. They are light, and non-imposing, IMO. I'm glad we've moved past those red/ cyan glasses for the most part. Those paper glasses that come with some DVDs are a bit rough though (Coraline).

Coraline was an amazing movie. The 3D is great. I own the two-disc directors cut, and it has 3D glasses with it. Granted, it is those red/ cyan glasses, it still looks good. I think it is really funny how James Cameron is like "lol, I 'invented' 3D", yet none of his movies used it till Avatar. I've heard the "amazing" story of how Avatar was supposed to be done in the 90's but the technology just was not good enough for Cameron's AMAZING vision, and retelling of Pocahontas, and every other "solider must choose, and it is really obvious from the start" movie. Fuck Avatar.

Anyway, I'll see a movie in 3D, but it is not something I need. I will probably never own any type of 3D TV, or anything. I have slight motion sickness, and it does kick in after a while, especially with long movies like Avatar.

[jerome]

3D video games is not a new idea. NES did it with 3D World Runner. It may not have been the world's greatest game, but they did have it. There were others I'm sure, but I didn't own them.
http://torpedovip.com/nes/shots/157.gif

Wiki on 3D films:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film

Both are going to get a "Hey COOL! I got to have THAT!", followed then by a "That's been done.", and finally "When you make it so I can be in the movie and feel Angelina Jolie's (by then saggy) boobs*, call me."

[Jigglysaint]

I fucking hate 3D, but I have a legit reason besides "lol it sux". I'm partly blind, and concequently, I am not able to see out of both lens at the same time. That means the 3D effect either doesn't work, or only works a little bit. At the very least the glasses get rid of the inherent bluriness cause by the 3D picture.

[Cloral]

This past summer I was on vacation with my family and my father wanted to see Despicable Me. It was a 3d movie, but we were staying in a small mountain community, so the showing was in 2d. Several times in the movie they had a shot that was obviously a gimmicky 3d effect, and seeing it in 2d looked stupid. Though even in 3d, seeing something that was forced to pop off the screen at you looks stupid.
Luckily I've only seen one movie in 3d, and that movie was Avatar. Avatar was shot fully in 3d, instead of being applied in post-production. As a result, the 3d in that movie worked really well. For most of the movie I completely forgot the thing was in 3d. So I probably have more hope for what is possible in 3d than most. That doesn't mean that what Hollywood is producing today is any good. It's a new gimmick, and studios are slapping it into their films left and right without any thought for whether it really belongs. The third dimension is something that must be planned for and included in the script and the staging, like it is in theater. Not something that is slapped on at the end.

You also have to remember that it is possible to create much more convincing 3d than what is done in most theaters today. Anybody who has seen a 3d film in an Imax theater will know what I mean. About 12 years ago I saw an Imax film in Vegas that was essentially a glorified Discovery Channel program about sea life. But at the beginning of the film, they slowly lowered the camera into the ocean. And for about the next minute, I felt like I was drowning. I had to keep telling myself it was okay to breathe. That was fuckin' intense.

[Blonde799]

I think Cloral has the right idea, which is why I hate 3D viewing.

I don't notice much of a difference at all! I dunno, it may be just me.

But I consider 3D TV and such unnecessary. Worthless.

Just like HD ANYTHING.

[aces2022]

It just takes all the ideas out of the producers head and makes them think of appearence and presentation. We have passed the point where presentation has fooled "everyone." Most people now have learned anyway by being fooled at least once, and I don't think will stick around long.

[Nicholas Steel]

It's purpose is to drive down the prices of 2D displays :P

[MottZilla]

It's purpose is to drive down the prices of 2D displays :P

If only that were true. I think prices have been holding steady mostly, with maybe some slight decreases.

[Herban_legend]

Im sure we can all agree that it will lead to something near or far in the future we can all play and be happy:) Alotta trends do that sometimes, i guess , i mean the whole fad/trend thing's about all we got to talk about so eventually someones gonna talk about something else and bam the circle revolves....it rarely starts as good as it ends

[Bobstoo]

Im not really a fan of 3D movies its pointless in my eyes, and i hate the glasses. but i heard that there are TVS coming out where you dont have to wear the glasses