Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

3D Films ...


Mallorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've seen a few 3D films at the pictures and got sore eyes, headaches and eye pain which lasted throughout all the film and for several hours later. After the initial "wow" at the beginning of the films, the 3D effect became unremarkable to me and due to the comfortableness of eyes problems I found myself not enjoying the film.

 

I also have this problem with 3DS and can not use the 3D feature.

 

I was just wondering if anyone else feels this way during 3D films?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took one too many blows to the head when I was younger so I'm mostly blind in one eye. It means I can't see 3D films as actually 3D. When I put on the glasses, I just see it as any other film. But after a while, I still start getting a weird feeling behind my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D isn't ready for prime time... I wants me a holosuite!

 

I've never been to a theatre 3D but after Avatar I decided to buy a new PC and have 3D with it.

 

So I bought a big 3D monitor (ASUS with built in NVidia 3D Vision) and wanted to have 3D movies and games.

 

The monitor was around $700 so about double what a similar size non-3D would have cost me..

 

Meh... it's too distracting in games (LOTRO is 3D capable) and movies gave me a headache... plus it's a PITA to configure as each movie seems to need a little tweaking to get it just right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had those kinds of eye problems with them in the past, so I don't bother with 3D films for the most part.

 

When I do decide to see one, I try to sit as far back in the theater as I possibly can and as close to the center of the screen as I can get.  

 

That's been working for me so far, plus the theater I go to for 3D was redone recently so I think the equipment is pretty good now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a gimmick, Gravity was actually the exception and was quite good, most movies made with 3d in mind appear to focus too much on getting the "wow, look, 3d" moments, instead of making an actual good movie.

 

Those moments in a film when they do something just to show off 3D. Like intentionally make a weird scene were the actor reaches out to the camera, or shooting either side of the camera. They just make me cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't do 3D. My pet peeve about 3D in Massachusetts is that, as always, we don't clearly label things (if at all) and often the only way to find out you bought a ticket for a 3D movie is when they hand you the glasses and you can go all the way round for a refund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't do 3D. My pet peeve about 3D in Massachusetts is that, as always, we don't clearly label things (if at all) and often the only way to find out you bought a ticket for a 3D movie is when they hand you the glasses and you can go all the way round for a refund.

Try accidentally attending an 'autistic screening' of a film! Lighting stays on, volume is down, no adverts and laughter at odd intervals. But they treat you much nicer when you're buying a ticket and being directed to the screen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't do 3D. My pet peeve about 3D in Massachusetts is that, as always, we don't clearly label things (if at all) and often the only way to find out you bought a ticket for a 3D movie is when they hand you the glasses and you can go all the way round for a refund.

Americans that doesn't label everything? My world view just collapsed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only do 3D when it's something worth watching in 3D. I think 1 film so far! (I never went to watch the Des of Smaug in the cinema)

I wear glasses, so I have to wear the 3D glasses over the top of them, which made shit weird, but I coped(no migraines).

 

I'd rather watch in 2D. actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D is a tawdry and crass gimmick, which makes movies for which it is employed seem all the tackier and more unworthy for its inclusion. It is used to the detriment of films.

 

It is not some magnificent leap forward in film-making technique. Such things are universally relevant to all genres of movie. Can you imagine they would ever re-release Schindler's List in 3D? Of course not. It would look hugely sleazy and exploitative and there would probably be boycotts and protests. Would they ever bother to re-release The Shawshank Redemption or Mr. Holland's Opus in 3D? No. Because it would add nothing to already-great films, it would only detract from their greatness.

 

It has been shown to cause migraines and nausea, and no studies were done regarding its long-term effects prior to the implementation of the newest version of the technology in screens the world over. Still haven't been done in any significant way either, which is especially sinister and irresponsible when you realise that it's marketed primarily towards children and their still-developing eyes. Who knows the ill effects it is causing as we speak?

 

Not the movie studios, that's for sure. They don't give enough of a shit to even research what they're shoving onto people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those moments in a film when they do something just to show off 3D. Like intentionally make a weird scene were the actor reaches out to the camera, or shooting either side of the camera. They just make me cringe.

 

This. That is one of my biggest annoyances with 3D, along with rapid camera movement and/or action (like spiderman swinging through the sky and changing direction 5 times in 3 seconds or somesuch).

 

First time was in Avatar where the action was 30m away, yet they made a single straw of grass sit RIGHT in front of your eye.

Latest example was Star Trek, I think, where they had this dialogue and made the camera sit just behind the shoulder so you would have the back of the head, hair and ear in front right in front of your eye.

 

Seeing I always get strange looks when I state that things like that annoy me to no end, I was beginning to think it was just me. Apparently not.

 

SNy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those moments in a film when they do something just to show off 3D. Like intentionally make a weird scene were the actor reaches out to the camera, or shooting either side of the camera. They just make me cringe.

SCTV is a Canadian legend.

Dr. Tongue here is John Candy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i flat out refuse to see a film in 3D.

 

if there isn't a standard release, i skip.

 

i once bridged and tunneled my way out to the burbs to see a standard release of Tr0n II...  yeah what a cinematic piece of smelly ass.

 

so now if the cushy new theaters in the city core don't have a standard release, i skip.

 

absolutely hate the current industry pushing this.

 

only the bottom line in box office takes will determine if this continues, or falls back into obscurity, just like the previous times...

 

whilst there is definitely a segment that want this...  i do think the segment that has grown weary of it and now avoids 3d releases like the plague, is the segment that is growing.

 

we shall see what plays out, but i will not weep if the studios decide this isn't making the money to justify the investment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be getting harder to do.  Avoid them, that is.  Some recent movies where I live here in Maine opened in two theaters but you would only see ONE time that was a standard offering with all the others in BOTH screens in 3D.  Guardians of the Galaxy and I think Maleficent both were difficult to find in standard.  Our local 10 Cinema spot from Regal having such a limited offering was baffling to me and made me think that non-3D movies may be going the way of vinyl records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling though 3D is here to stay, and we will keep getting movies with the 3D option - hopefully they will not be too cheesy with the 3D.

 

I have only seen a few recently but prefer 2D. I am open to being convinced though - if I can see a 3D and have the glasses work right. Last 3D movie I saw I snuck in to (before another movie) and didn't have the glasses - so it wasn't pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be getting harder to do.  Avoid them, that is.  Some recent movies where I live here in Maine opened in two theaters but you would only see ONE time that was a standard offering with all the others in BOTH screens in 3D.  Guardians of the Galaxy and I think Maleficent both were difficult to find in standard.  Our local 10 Cinema spot from Regal having such a limited offering was baffling to me and made me think that non-3D movies may be going the way of vinyl records.

Interesting.   In cinemas in Poland, even in new corporate cinema multiplexes - there is plenty of 2D showings.   It depends on location, movie and cinema.   Those cinemas with better 3D systems like IMAX DMR or 4DX get about an either 1:1 ratio of 2D to 3D or a bit more 3D. 

Those cinemas with simple 'normal 3D' - usually have more 2D offerings.

 

It also depend on a show -  special effect show-cases like Guardians of Galaxy, etc   will have more 3D projections, while movies like The Hobbit will have more 2D projections.   Additionally there is more Subbed projects than there is Dubbed projections.(for the same movie title)  Even on 3D there is usually more(or at least equal) number subbed 3D projections.

 

 

Above situation is for corporate cinemas of course.   In single 'indie' cinemas - there is more 2D of course. (since those that survived are mostly with less blockbuster and more ambitious offerings obviosuly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow an expert to speak on this.

I've been in the audio video world now since 1998 working with retail stores and currently inside one for the last couple years.

I have not had a job outside the A/V world since starting out. 

 

I'll tell you guys the same thing I tell my customers, family and anyone else who will listen.  It's a gimmick/novelty.  Just about every TV above an entry level TV is going to have it.   The question now becomes, what is available for content for 3D.  The answer is still not much.  Broadcast has pretty much abandon it at this point.   Xfinity (our biggest cable provider in the states) had a channel solely dedicated to it, as did ESPN.  Neither exists today.  sure there are Blueray discs that are available but much like the complaints above people are getting migraines and in some cases physically ill watching the content.  When it is done in movies most times it is overdone or done in inappropriate places.

 

3D films have existed in some form since 1915 and why has it not caught on?   Back in the 50's and 60's it made a splash, but why is it, that it never stuck around?  I think you'll find most people do not want to watch programs/flims that use it.   Then you have the people who wear eyewear.  They have to wear those stupid glasses over the ones they already wear and it is uncomfortable. 

 

Every day I have customers that come in to our store and specificially ask if a TV has 3D or not.  (everyone we sell does)  I always ask if they have BD discs to use with the TV and the answer 95% of the time has been no.  50% of those folks also did not even have the means to watch a 3D movie (a Blueray capable player)  The ones that did use the 3D technology said it was their kids using most of the time.  

 

They also ask if a TV is a smart TV even if they have no WIFI available in the home or already have several preexisting devices in the home that accomplish the mission already. (BD player, tablets, iphones/smart phones, desktop computers, Roku, Apple TV, laptops, etc.)   It's redundant. 

 

Back to 3D.   LED/plasma technology, aside from OLED or 4K, had reached it's peak technology wise 4 or 5 years ago.  So when they offer a new year model TV they offer things that are cheap to include as new features, ala 3D, smart functionality, wireless and other features most will not use.   I've seen trends come and go in this industry and I can firmly say 3D is one that is not going to last.  But TV manufacturers will stick stick it in the TV because it's cheap and the dumbass consumers expect it to be there now even if they never use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...