Is 3-D Dead in the Water?

[Guest Jacob]

Yeah but it looked a lot more impressive in 3D clumsy story or not.

[Skummy]

But I'm not really prepared to pay twice as much for cinema tickets to see how much money James Cameron can spend polishing a turd. I don't care if it looks prettier, it's still a decidedly average film.

[zero]

Yeah, Avatar had to be in 3D... shitty story, no doubt, but the experience of seeing what Cameron did with the technology was worth the price of admission. I'm glad I saw it, even if the movie itself wasn't anything special, but the 3D aspect was the entire point.

[Jimmy]

Avatar was a 3D experience. And it was worth the extra £1.50. A Christmas Carol was the only other impressive use of 3D I've seen. Everything else has been wank.

[METALMAN]

Piranha 3D? Dead In The Water? I really hope this is a case of 'pun not intended'. >_>

Anyway, I like 3D. It's good fun. Ultimately I'm not bothered either way but if I had the choice between going to see a film in 3D or 2D I'd choose 3D. Maybe it's just that the novelty hasn't worn off for me yet but in every 3D film I've seen there are at least one or two moments where you genuinely believe a truck is going to plough into you or whatever. Whenever I've been to a 3D film (at Odeon and Cineworld) the actual ticket price has been exactly the same as a normal film - the extra is for the 3D glasses. Which is fair enough. I just bring my own.

[hackerjack]

A lot of stupid opinions on here that seem to be looking at purely clack or white situations as I see with a lot of movie goers. I don't understand the 3D backlash at all to be honest. As far as I'm concerned it's just another facet of a movie like colour (over monochrome) and surround sound was.

Some movies will benefit massively from being in 3D, some will even be shot with the 3D effects being the prime concern (the new Saw movie for example), while some will not benefit as much. Frankly a movie like Toy Story could be in black and white with single speaker sound and still be as enjoyable, Avatar probably not.

I'm not a huge fan of the extra £1.50 on 3D movies but I understand that thre are extra overheads involved plus the initial investment in the technology to recoup, the price difference will fall in the future as that changes, again I point to surround sound which also cost more to begin with but was ultimately integrated as an option in all screens at no extra cost. In most cases though there is an option, if you dont want to pay extra and your mates do then dont go with them, it's the same as complaining that they want to go to a more expensive resteraunt instead of a MacDonalds drivethrough because they think it's better while you do not.

Sure 3D isn't everyone's cup of tea but I don't get why people feel the need to bitch about it.

[Trey]

I think that making a lot of these movies in 3D just so they can advertise that it's in 3D will be dead in the water sooner rather then later, but 3D can ad to the experience if done right. The nearest 3D theater from me is an hour away so I didn't go see Avatar but everyone I know that did said that the 3D effect made the movie. I think that's where we'll settle eventually (or at least I hope), is that a lot of movies will still be 2D but those very few that will be using 3D to make it an experience will certainly benefit great. At least I hope so, cause I hate all of this 3D stuff coming out.

[Benjamin]

A lot of stupid opinions on here that seem to be looking at purely clack or white situations as I see with a lot of movie goers. I don't understand the 3D backlash at all to be honest. As far as I'm concerned it's just another facet of a movie like colour (over monochrome) and surround sound was.

Some movies will benefit massively from being in 3D, some will even be shot with the 3D effects being the prime concern (the new Saw movie for example), while some will not benefit as much. Frankly a movie like Toy Story could be in black and white with single speaker sound and still be as enjoyable, Avatar probably not.

I'm not a huge fan of the extra £1.50 on 3D movies but I understand that thre are extra overheads involved plus the initial investment in the technology to recoup, the price difference will fall in the future as that changes, again I point to surround sound which also cost more to begin with but was ultimately integrated as an option in all screens at no extra cost. In most cases though there is an option, if you dont want to pay extra and your mates do then dont go with them, it's the same as complaining that they want to go to a more expensive resteraunt instead of a MacDonalds drivethrough because they think it's better while you do not.

Sure 3D isn't everyone's cup of tea but I don't get why people feel the need to bitch about it.

Yeah, you morons, don't express your dislike for something, that's stupid and not wanted here.

[Herr Matzat]

Yeah, Avatar had to be in 3D... shitty story, no doubt, but the experience of seeing what Cameron did with the technology was worth the price of admission. I'm glad I saw it, even if the movie itself wasn't anything special, but the 3D aspect was the entire point.

i liked how he used it but the pictures in themselfs were heavily kitsch and i was just suffering becaus they draged what would have been a bad 90 minute movie out to something that went on forever and became terrible. Story and acting dos matter... i also feel that 3d only is an efect, artisticly it ads nothing to the expirience.

[ClaRK! Kent]

3D is pointless. It is just a marketing tool. My Bloody Valentine is stone cold proof of that. Movies that are marketed mainly or entirely on 3D (like Piranha) end up sucked. In cases like Toy Story 3, that I did see in 3D, it didn't enhance the film one iota and if it wasn't for the story being so immersive the 3D aspect would have only acted as a distraction. Since this whole thing started I have said it is just a fad and I still believe it to be exactly that, and like all fads it'll die out.

Not to say 3D will disappear entirely. As far as I can till little kids love the 3D experience so I can see it becoming a permanent fixture for Pixar and Dreamworks, it just won't be something you'd extensively advertise. Horror movies and Action movies may also find use for it.

Kids movies, horror movies and action movies. Those 3 incredibly niche genres that make almost no money for studios.

And your argument is complete tosh - people said CGI was a fad, they said HD was a fad, they probably said full colour was a fad too. 3D is the next evolution in cinema, it's here to stay and it's already permeating into the home with 3D-TVs and the like. I have no problem with that, some 3D movies are really good, although I think it'll be better when they stop feeling like they have to show off that they've cracked the technology by having things come flying out of the screen at my face. Avatar's 3D was nice like that, it wasn't so self-conscious, although the movie itself sucked quite badly as drama.

[SlicedBread]

Agreed that Avatar had to be in 3D, I heard so many people claim it was the best movie ever and while the story was solid alot of it's praise came from visual effects.

[Josh]

3D is pointless. It is just a marketing tool. My Bloody Valentine is stone cold proof of that. Movies that are marketed mainly or entirely on 3D (like Piranha) end up sucked. In cases like Toy Story 3, that I did see in 3D, it didn't enhance the film one iota and if it wasn't for the story being so immersive the 3D aspect would have only acted as a distraction. Since this whole thing started I have said it is just a fad and I still believe it to be exactly that, and like all fads it'll die out.

Not to say 3D will disappear entirely. As far as I can till little kids love the 3D experience so I can see it becoming a permanent fixture for Pixar and Dreamworks, it just won't be something you'd extensively advertise. Horror movies and Action movies may also find use for it.

Kids movies, horror movies and action movies. Those 3 incredibly niche genres that make almost no money for studios.

And your argument is complete tosh - people said CGI was a fad, they said HD was a fad, they probably said full colour was a fad too. 3D is the next evolution in cinema, it's here to stay and it's already permeating into the home with 3D-TVs and the like. I have no problem with that, some 3D movies are really good, although I think it'll be better when they stop feeling like they have to show off that they've cracked the technology by having things come flying out of the screen at my face. Avatar's 3D was nice like that, it wasn't so self-conscious, although the movie itself sucked quite badly as drama.

I can get used to 3D being here to stay, so long as I continue to have the option to watch in 2D. Not only do I typically find 3D to be distracting (the opposite of its intention), it tends to make me feel a bit ill. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[DMN in the House]

So, I went and saw my first 3D movie. Jackass. It was funny, but didn't really need the 3D.

I'm very 'meh' on the whole thing. Movies are already expensive enough, I don't need to pay an extra 4 bucks for a movie.

[ClaRK! Kent]

I think once the technology moves on to the point that you no longer need the glasses to watch the film in 3D, the 'option' part will go pretty quick and it'll be the filmmakers' choice, much the way that surround sound or something is. And it's only distracting because it's very self-conscious right now ("look, this ball/bullet/whatever is coming right at you!") and because it's so new, once we get used to it and it stops being a novelty for filmmakers it'll be less of a big deal. CGI was the same, at the time it was very notable but now I hardly notice it unless it's badly-done or something.