3-D Movies - Your Thoughts
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
United States
May 8, 2010 3:08pm CST
Hey, everyone. I've been thinking recently about this new trend of 3-D movies that's going on these days. I wanted to know what you all think of 3-D, but first, I'll offer my thoughts.
Basically, 3-D is a gimmick, right? I mean, it just is. Like Smell-O-Vision before it, it's an extra thing added to a movie to enhance the experience so they can charge more money. Now, let's be clear: gimmicks are not always and necessarily a bad thing. For example, twist endings are, essentially, gimmicks. When a studio starts advertising their movie by saying, "Don't spoil the ending," they are banking on enough people being intrigued by that mystery enough to fork over the cash to see the movie, and then being so impressed by the ending that they tell all their friends, "You gotta see this movie!" Gimmick. And I happen to like twist endings, if done well, so... gimmicks are not necessarily a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned.
3-D, however, for me, is simply a gimmick that is unnecessary the way it's being used today. Of the new batch of 3-D films, I've seen "Avatar" and "How to Train Your Dragon." With "Avatar," I left the theater saying, "Well, that sure was pretty to look at." I didn't care for the movie, and the 3-D didn't make it a good movie. With "How to Train Your Dragon," I left the theater saying, "What a satisfying movie. Good story, good characters, good moments: good movie." The 3-D didn't make the movie better, by which I mean it didn't actually enhance the solid story that was already there.
And that's really the thing, isn't it? 3-D is a gimmick and should be treated as such. Basically, the thing that's nifty about 3-D is things seeming to come straight toward you, to fly at you, etc. It's about things being so close, you feel like you can touch 'em. Given that, 3-D really should be used to enhance movies that play into that fun. Movies should create reasons for things to jump out at you.
Now, I know what you're thinking (or what I'd be thinking, if I had just read what I wrote). You're thinking, "Really?! Movies should create reasons for things to jump out? Doesn't that sorta destroy the notion of a good story, well told? Doesn't that just mean that every 3-D movie should be 'Piranha'?" To which I say, "Of course every movie shouldn't be 'Piranha.' Please don't make every movie 'Piranha.'" No, instead what I'm saying is that every 3-D movie should embrace the fact that it's a gimmick, and be aware of the fact that we, as an audience, aren't willing to sit through two hours of madcap justifications and contrivances just to see that gimmick.
My conclusion is that 3-D is fine... in small doses. I think about "Captain EO," that movie experience at Disneyland from years back starring Michael Jackson and Anjelica Houston. That was perfect because they came up with silly reasons for things to jump out at you... but it was only fifteen minutes long. Perfect. I wouldn't mind if there were 3-D shorts before feature films, but two hours... just unnecessary.
So, that's what I think. What do you all think?
8 responses
@stephbond89 (359)
•
9 May 10
Personally I think that 3D films are just a gimmick to make the film makers more money.
Me and my husband were going to go and watch the Disney Pixar film Up, in 3D, but when we got to the box office, the tickets were almost £10 per person, whereas a normal ticket is £4!!! We couldn't understand why they were so expensive just to watch the exact same film only with a pair of uncomfortable glasses on your face! The glasses you are given when you go to the cineam are just the cardboard glasses which you often get free with magazines, they cost about 10p to make each one, and if you bring your own pair of 3D glasses you do not get any money off the price of your ticket.
When in Disneyland a few years back now, there was a 3D show on, (Honey I shrunk the audience), it was free (or should I say included in the price), and the glasses you got there were like sunglasses plastic type. There was a stewards at the doors giving each person in turn their glasses and then again on the way back out, they made sure they collected the glasses from every person, so nobody could steal the glasses- you HAD to take glasses to go in, and so you HAD to give them back on the way back out. But here they cannot be bothered with that, and instead give you the terrible glasses which kids pull off and break and which are uncomfortable and don't fit very well!
The films are great, and 3D is very clever yet a very simple concept, the film doesn't take much to turn it to 3D and so to charge so much more for it is ridiculous and completely not needed.
We later found out that because my husband is colourblind, the 3D glasses wouldn't work for him, and so he would have paid £10 to watch a film which was no different for him!
Yes some films are better to watch in 3D as they add excitment to the film as it "brings it to life" in front of you, but they need to lower the prices of the tickets and maybe bring out a much better form of the glasses like the ones we had in Disneyland! That way, more people will want to watch the films in 3D, but at the moment I won't pay an extra £6 per ticket to go and see the exact same film, just with some bits coming out at the screen giving me a heart attack most of the time!!!
All in all, the glasses are uncomfortable, the prices are ridiculously high, and the films although a "better" viewing experience for some, are basically just the same film with a bit of blurring of the edges to make it pop out of the screen when special colours are used over your eyes. Clever= Yes...worth the extra money, for me, no.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
9 May 10
Thanks for responding.
For what it's worth, the glasses they use now are better than the cardboard ones they used to use. They are now very similar to the ones Disneyland uses for "Captain EO" and "Honey, I Shrunk the Audience." My memory of the Disneyland ones is that they were stiff and rigid, meaning that you couldn't fold the ear holder part of the frames down. The new ones at the theaters allow you to fold them down, just like regular sunglasses. Also, there is typically a receptacle for you to return the glasses afterward, but there's no one standing guard to make sure you did. However, as you mention, what good would keeping them do, since you'd still have to pay the full price next time you saw a 3-D movie, whether or not you have your own glasses.
As for turning a film into 3-D, I'm curious what you mean. If you mean shooting a film in 3-D, then I agree: it doesn't take much more than using 3-D cameras. However, if you mean actually turning a non-3-D film into 3-D, well, there's a bit more to it than that. Unfortunately, as with "Clash of the Titans," they did a poor job of it. They realized how much money 3-D makes, and so spent six weeks putting their film through a process that should take at least a year, resulting in really poor quality 3-D. The flip side of that is that there's a movie that I'm very excited about, called "Cabin in the Woods," which is being delayed by a year because they are adding 3-D to it. While I think that's ridiculous, at least it'll be good 3-D.
@mirpetrov (1)
• Bulgaria
9 May 10
3D movies are very interested, but this is very injury for the people. I think that because i have headache and eye pain after 3D movie.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
9 May 10
My wife is very similar. She says it takes a while for her eyes to focus, and when they finally do, she has to strain, just a little bit, to see it, so when it's all over and her eyes are relaxing, she says it hurts a bit. I haven't experienced this, but it certainly doesn't sound like fun.
Would you say your interest in 3-D outweighs the headaches and eye pain?
@monkeylong (3139)
• Guangzhou, China
9 May 10
As far as I am concerned, I think the 3-D movie si so wonderful for me to watch. I enjoy the 3-D movie so much in my area. For me, I think the movie named Avatar,which can be the most wonderful movie that I have ever seen. But what makes so upset is that I must wear a pair of glasses to watch the 3-D movie, or I just can not watch the result that the 3-D movie brings to us all.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
9 May 10
That's cool! You're one of the few here who are singing the praises of 3-D. Do you find that it enhances the story elements of the movie? Or just the experience? Like, would you enjoy the actual movie less if the 3-D weren't there, do you think? Or is 3-D just the icing on top for you?
I love this, by the way. Getting all these different opinions and ideas. So cool.
@SBlangkon (5)
• Indonesia
8 May 10
Yup ... i think something is missing when we watch 3-D movie what i call humanity sense.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
9 May 10
I think it's certainly possible to have real moments of humanity in a 3-D film. However, what worries me is that they'll stop thinking it's important and necessary to good storytelling. Time will tell, I suppose.
@firdauzi (283)
• Indonesia
9 May 10
i never watch 3D movie in my live. It is the one that you should use red and blue in one eyeglasses right? In 90's there was a series in television in my area which implement it. Audience should use the eyeglasses, i ever try the cheap one, but it has no difference at all.
Yesterday i see a new technology in 3D. It is 3D TV and LCD. The eyeglasses doesn't have a red and blue color anymore. It is pure transparent and more sophisticated. From the prototype, the thing really shows in 3D perfectly. The visual just like popped out to you. When it is implemented in game, the now generation game which is equal with PS3 graphic is more awesome, more realistic. This 3D TV is somewhere out there has sold by some manufacturer, but some new technology of it still just a prototype and begin to be implemented globally in 2012.
I hope by the time i have enough money to buy it. I want to see a 3D visual of movie and game in my own house.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
9 May 10
Yeah, the glasses used to be red and blue lenses. Now they're super advanced. I've even heard of some that run on batteries, which I assume are just about the most perfect 3-D you can get.
Also, yeah, 3-D TVs. What'll they think of next?
@mrseanbond (86)
•
8 May 10
ive never been to see a 3d movie before as im colourblind and ive been told i wont be able to see the differance as its all about colour perception etc. Also to see a normal 2d movie in the uk its around 5 pounds to see a 3d one its nearly 12 quid with the glasses added on top. sorry for that amount id rather take a trip to the pub.
Also after reading the newspaper the makers of the new 3d tvs are having to issue health warnings to epiletic people and pregnant women as the colour perception required may over load the brain and cause fits or vomiting
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
9 May 10
Wow, that's fascinating about the TV health warnings. I hadn't heard that.
That's too bad about the color blindness thing. Not because you're missing out on too much, but because you'll never be able to know for sure and so have an informed opinion. For some reason I thought only the old 3-D technology used color. I thought the new way used... something else. :) Clearly I'm not a techno-guy. Interestingly, Johnny Depp has an eye situation that prevents him from seeing 3-D. Not color blindness, but something. I say "interestingly" because he stars in one of the biggest 3-D movies of recent times: "Alice in Wonderland." And that, my friend, is what we call irony.
Do you know about how much five pounds and twelve quid is in dollars? Just curious.
@Lazzer007 (53)
•
8 May 10
My apologies but the question was to long, but from the jist I agree if 3D is norm nothing much in it, and not very keen. It also depends on the movies. Avatar raelly don't wanna see in 3D but if its a family movie for example yeah it could be fun.
The question is we just in a comfort zone and resisting change or simply don't like 3D doze in high amounts. Only time will tell. Yeah they should make 3D movies but be selective and of course check what the market is like, too much of anything can't be good.
I surely wouln't cough up extra everytime, just bc its a 3D.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
8 May 10
Sorry that you felt the question was too long. I like to have nice, healthy conversations, and I love hearing every bit of what people have to say, so I like to provide the same to others.
At any rate, I think you do make a valid point. I may well be resistant to it because it's new and I'm not used to it and change is always hard. I know, for instance, that I resisted getting a Blu-Ray player for a long while, but now I have it and I love it. So yeah, it may be that. Right now it doesn't feel that way, but that definitely doesn't mean that that won't change.
@cmjune76 (273)
• United States
8 May 10
I have not seen a 3-D movie except for Shark Boy and Lava Girl; and with that we needed to wear 3-D glasses.
Does the new 3-D technology in the movie theaters still require the viewers to wear glasses?
I have seen Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon in '2-D' format and thought there were amazing; I couldn't imagine them being any better!
I saw '3-D' tv's for sale at Best Buy last weekend.... they are crazy expensive too! I don't understand how they work though; I hope it's just a passing phase though; I can't afford to get another new television any time soon.
@lifedoesntimitate (128)
• United States
8 May 10
I totally agree with you about hoping it's just a fad. Unfortunately, I don't think that it is. It seems to be the "wave of the future," even though we've had 3-D technology and movies for decades now. It is, admittedly, better than it's ever been, but still. It's not new.
To answer your first question, yes, you do still need the glasses. However, they are different than the ones that you maybe used for "Shark Boy and Lava Girl." Were the ones you used for that movie still the red lens/blue lens situation? If so, then yes, there are newer glasses that are, I believe, better. Basically, the new ones have lenses that just look like sunglasses. The frames are big and kinda bulky, but that's just to allow them to be "one size fits all," and to fit over regular prescription glasses.
I can imagine that the new TVs are crazy expensive. I haven't looked into them, but since they're the newest thing, well, gadget lovers will pay extra to be the first to have them. My understanding is that it basically offers pristine quality 3-D, and has the ability to support 3-D channels, which will be happening in the next year or so. It is strange to me, because I know for a fact that there are movies that have already been released on DVD and Blu-Ray on 3-D, so I don;t really get what these new TVs are really offering, except, like I said, a better quality 3-D.
Crazy, crazy world. :)
