Tossin’ It Out There: What do YOU think of 3D?

This Friday, Disney’s “The Lion King” will re-open in theatres nationwide in 3D.

Tuesday it was reported by the Hollywood Reporter that “Top Gun” is being converted to 3D for a 2012 rerelease.

Just about every movie this summer was released in 3D, and the majority of the Holiday films are, as well. I counted. Well, ok, I didn’t.

Regardless, 3D is not going away anytime soon. Between being able to squeeze a surcharge out of it, having a good excuse to rerelease old movies (such as the two above), offering something most people can’t get out of their home theatre experience, and thus a reason to GO to the theatre, and justifying the depreciation on the 3D digital projectors that movie theatres just all went through, you can rest assured that Hollywood will not be letting 3D prove to be a flash in the pan fad.

How do you feel about it? Do you like it? Love it? Hate it? Don’t even notice it?

Do the higher ticket prices piss you off? Do you ever find yourself deliberately choosing the 2D option?

IS it the future of movies?

Let me hear it! I wanna know! What do YOU think of 3D?


36 thoughts on “Tossin’ It Out There: What do YOU think of 3D?

  1. It’s expensive (No wonder 3D movies are always box office success… It’s because of the tickets price!) ad it makes my head ache. I always go for the 2Ds.

    • They’re definite jacking the 3D ticket prices, but a big concern for studios is that the overall % of ticket sales for a particular movie in 3D vs 2D is declining.

      People are starting to opt out.

  2. It can be excellent…transforming a movie into an immersive experience…when done right. The only time I thought it added anything was with ‘Avatar’.

  3. The few 3D movies I’ve seen have been dissapointing. I think any movie that is converted to 3D will be like that. Now movies that are filmed in 3D as they are made might be different. I haven’t seen one yet. But I know every 2D movie that’s been converted to 3D before it’s theatrical release or old movies like the upcoming Lion King that are converted just don’t look cool enough for me to spend the extra money.

    Hell on my budget I find it hard going to see all the 2D movies I want haha.

    • I hope that if they’re converting and rereleasing they won’t do the shabby, quickie, low budget conversion that the new releases have been doing, you know?

      If people are going to go see these rereleases (and that’s still up in the air), they better make the 3D good.

  4. The purpose of 3D is to make the cinematic experience more immersive. The problem with it, to me, is that instead of being immersed, I’m more distracted by 3D. I actually stop absorbing the content and start more actively thinking about the process. That is a Bad Thing.

    It could simply be that after close to 40 years of watching stuff in 2D, my brain is conditioned to accepting the 2D image and filling in the gaps. But as you say, 3D isn’t going away anytime soon, and I suspect that younglings who have regular access to 3D, especially on TV, will soon see 3D content as a matter-of-course.

  5. Gotta admit, I don’t really like the 3-d. Maybe if I didn’t have to wear the glasses I might change my mind, but like K26dp said, I find it more distracting than anything else. Ahh, who am I kidding, even without the glasses I wouldn’t change my mind. God, does this mean I am getting old? If so, somebody please smack me. I’ll stick with the “old fashioned” 2D and like it. Just give me hi-def and I’m good.

    • You’re old alright. Lol

      But not liking 3D isn’t why.

      The glasses definitely piss a lot of people off. Especially since they serve to darken the screen, and dim the picture. So there’s been a lot of blowback about that.

      Glasses-free 3D will be here soon, somehow. You know someone somewhere’s working on it.

  6. 3D doesn’t make or break a movie for me. Granted, we don’t see many because at $15/ticket it costs my family $90 to go without even getting popcorn and junior mints….and the thought of choosing between a Movie Night or eating for the week isn’t too popular in my house.

    That aside, I wish producers/directors etc. would focus on better storylines rather than better effects. I would like them to think of us movies goers as having a brain that needs to be stimulated intellectually rather than with big explosions with flying shrapnel that appears to be coming our way.

    And finally, remakes of old movies …..that whole concept irritates the snot out of me. If a movie was great before….let it stand on it’s own. Don’t fix what ain’t broken. By the same token, if it sucked before, it will most likely suck again, but cost a lot more. Take the extra money and time to come up with something new! (if they want to make that 3D….have at it)

    • I can’t imagine the cost of a whole family going to the movies now. Things are so out of hand.

      Even as a solo movie goer, I was relieved when the summer 3D wave ended and ticket costs dropped for me.

      Now a matinee only costs me $7.75!! That’s awesome.

      And I’m SO with you on remakes, but I won’t reopen that can of worms here again. I already feel like people must be getting tired of hearing me rail against the storm on that.


      • Boy, I’m really getting sticker shock hearing about your east-coast ticket prices… even at the expensive theatre in my town, a 2D matinee is only $6.50 ($9.50 for 3D). At the main one I go to, $6 is the standard price for a 2D movie on a Friday evening (3D is $9), with matinees at $4… and the same mall has a 2nd-run theatre that’s typically $2 for full price, $4 for 3D. I can’t imagine paying $15 for a regular ticket… even the IMAX showings top at $14 here.

  7. My problem with 3D is that it seems like I haven’t been impressed by it since I first started seeing it. Mel and I went to Coraline, and thought that the 3D in that was amazing, and really added to the experience. My father and I saw My Bloody Valentine, and it was more of the same. I can think of several specific instances where things were popping out, surprising me, creating really interesting depths or otherwise generally adding something neat.

    Since then I’ve seen Monsters Vs. Aliens, Avatar in Imax 3D, Alice in Wonderland, Green Lantern, Thor, Captain America, Toy Story 1 and 2 rereleased, Final Destination 4, Up, and probably some others. None of them really popped for me like those first 2. I guess it must be because I’m just used to the effect now… kinda like how the idea of full CGI movies was mindblowing when Toy Story, or Final Fantasy released… and now it’s just meh…

    But then, I don’t remember very many of those movies throwing or poking or pointing things at me, which is what I *really* want out of a 3D movie.

    I recently watched The Lion King for the first time in probably 10 years, after watching it about a million times before. It’s really impressive, and an interesting choice for 3D. I’m curious how they’ll deal with all of the changing focus “shots” that appear throughout, particularly the intro. I wish I could get out to see it, because I wonder if it will add or take away from that amazing aspect of the movie.

    • I didn’t see Coraline, I bet that was good in 3D though.

      The thing is, I think there’s been two factors. 1 is that studios wanted to have the 3D ticket price withour having shot the film in 3D, so it led to this “Post Production” process, which is workable, but typically inferior. 2 is that Cameron actually (in my opinion) set a bad precednt with Avatar by emphasizing the “Immersive” factor. Other films aren’t cool enough to pull that off, and you wind up never feeling that “wow” factor. We’ll see how it goes from here out, but right now the only film that had that stuff popping out at you old school 80s style was Final Destination 3D, which was cheesy fun!

      • I don’t think it’s fair that people use Avatar as the guideline. Not because its 3D was so well done. But in my opinion, because it’s just so uninteresting. I think, and I could be completely wrong here, that most people think Avatar’s 3D is so great because it was the first movie that they were told “Go see this in 3D… it’s worth it!” So it’s the first (new generation) 3D movie they’ve seen. I think a lot of people have looked at it with those new eyes that I saw Coraline with. Maybe I’m underestimating how many people went to Beowulf, Coraline or My Bloody Valentine. (I know they weren’t the *first* of these new movies, but they were some of the first fully “shot” in 3D.)

        I didn’t find the 3D in Avatar to be that spectacular, immersive or anything. I felt more like k2, noticing the actual process more than anything. Especially that scene in the trailer, where Smurfette is under the foliage… the one that’s really supposed to show off the depth 3D can create? Yeah, that was just immersion breaking for me. Most of Avatar felt that way.

  8. Movies shot in 3d are far superior to those converted to 3d. That’s why Avatar looked so good.

    Long before every theater under the sun had 3d, I used to drive 1.5 hours to the nearest imax theater. Most of the movies I saw were 45-60 minute science documentaries. My favorite is Space Station 3D, which was a documentary filmed in space with imax 3d cameras.

  9. I’m still on the fence with 3D, of all the movies I have seen so far (How To Train a Dragon, Toy Story 3, Alice in Wonderland, Megamind and a few others), the 3D is much better with the animations than the live action. Megamind was the best one I saw so far. Alice in Wonderland was not good, it had the diorama look to it.

    I’ve watched these same movies on cable or DVD and found the 3D to not really be all that impressive. Its a gimmick. And a few other people have mentioned it already, its distracting.

    Personally I think 3D is a waste of money. The mind already converts everything for you. For a large number of people it just gives you headaches. I won’t be rushing out and buying a 3D blu-ray player anytime soon. Hell if there aren’t any3-D blu-ray players that go into a PC, I won’t be getting one at all. I don’t own a DVD or blu-ray, all done through computers now.

    • Your point on the animation was a good one. Toy Story 3 was also excellent in 3D.

      I’ve heard that “Mind already converst things to 3D” argument before, but I disagree with it. I know what they’re saying and to an extent its true, but logically, if the brain were automatically converting 2d to 3d, we’d never see any difference when we watch 3D movies. At all. And I can tell a big difference when 3d is on its game.

      • It’s just been my notice on 3D. I didn’t see Avatar in 3D but everything else I have, Animations have hands down taken the prize. Plus there are things you can with computers that you can’t do as easily with cameras, such as the flying scene in How to Train Your Dragon. That really hits you in 3D.

  10. I’m still “feeling it out” with 3D so far. I’ve only seen two movies in 3D; Thor and Green Lantern. I meant to see Captain America and Transformers 3, but I may have missed my window of opportunity on those.

    So far my experience has been a few minutes of “Hey, that’s kind of neat” and then a whole lot of… not really noticing. Maybe it’s the movies I saw; Thor was converted, I’m not sure about GL. Maybe it’s because I fiddle around with 3D models on a 2D screen so my brain’s already hardwired to extrapolate depth where there is none. Or maybe it’s something else, I don’t know. But the end result, at least so far, has been that while some people find the 3D too distracting, I don’t find it distracting enough, so to speak. If I’m not really being impressed by it, is it really worth the extra money? I think I need to see a movie which really excels at it, in most peoples’ opinions, to see if it’s just the films I’ve seen or if it’s me, but right now, I’m just not sure what the big deal is.

    I do think it’s gotten a bit ridiculous how everything has to be 3D now, though. I’m fairly sure that only a few films could benefit from it at its best anyway.

    • Those movies are good representations of the issue. “my experience has been a few minutes of “Hey, that’s kind of neat” and then a whole lot of… not really noticing.” Basically sums it up.

      If they’re going to do 3D, I think they should make the experience worth it across the board. It should be a living element to the movie. A wow factor all its own. And too often, its not…

  11. Top Gun in 3D eh- Bring on the volleyball scene…

    As far as 3D-HATE IT. Yes, I have seen far too many films in 3D with my kids and , yes, I have tried whenever possible to come up with an excuse to watch in 2-D. I often lose there…Unfortunately its become unavoidable and will only become more so as we head into the future- Especially as we wean an entire movie going generation on it- Ultimately 3D will be as rare as the microwave oven in your home.

    • I dont think its a bad thing though.

      I just think its going through growing pains.

      If you look at CGI, there’s STILL a lot of really bad stuff. Stuff they’re attempting that they can’t quite pull off. But if you look back to the early days, say Bond parasailing on that iceberg in “Die Another Day” or the “Star Wars” rerealeses… we’ve come a long way since then. Every new technology needs to grow ito its shoes so to speak. I think its got nowhere to go but up.

  12. Basically haven’t put my own comment up, I usually like to let everyone have the floor for awhile first.

    But Enough of my Yakkin’
    – Marti BeBergi,

    I’ve always said that the eventual endgame for fiction is the Star Trek Holodeck. Completly immersive interactive reality simulation. You can’t trump that.

    And this is a baby step along the way. Of course, we’re decades and decades removed from that being a reality, but if they can’t create 3D first, they can’t move on to Holograms.

    Just like any other technology, 3D has to go through a painful development process where we suffer through failed attempts, efforts that they cant quite realize, cheap knockoffs, ripoffs, etc. But we’ll grow out of it.

    I dont even mind the rerelases. At least its the original flick, and not some rehash with lesser stars. I’m not as against it as I was with colorization, which I thought was a bastardization. As long as the original version is continually brought forward onto the best media delivery systems available, I dont mind if the originals get played with some. Hell, I was initially all for the Star Wars CGI rereleases, back when I thought they were just a goof.

    But Hollywood does need to stop gouging us. Its ridiculous to think that it costs us now to go to the movies what it used to cost to go to a ballgame. God…. Especially since so many of the 3D releases right now are sub standard in quality.

  13. 3-D is totally useless to me. It has to be done completely and totally right (as in Avatar) but sadly, 99% of movies just can’t get close to that quality level so it’s more a detriment than anything. Add the increased price and I’m totally against it.

    • My movie theatre actually – I swear – scaled back their prices. They had it prominently displayed today when I went. 3D Movies dropped from $15.50 to $14.25. Not a huge drop, more symbolic than anything, but still… if anything, it shows they realize they have a problem on their hands.

    • I still think when its on its game, it adds to it. So I’m willing to pay the extra just in case it did it right.

      But I understand where you’re coming from. Obviously from the comments here, you’re not alone!

  14. I hate, hate, hate, hate 3-D…wait hate is too nice, despise; better. It gives me a headache, makes me nauseous and causes me to focus on the next 3-D occurrence rather than the content of the movie and seems, well, useless. I live my life in 3-D, I’m good with that. I watch movies not to be a part of them, but rather to be an observer. I want a director & a cinematographer to bring the story to me & make me interested without throwing things at me; if I wanted that, I’d ask the people in front of me to throw popcorn. With that said, I’d like to see Hollywood move toward creating new concepts, new movies; not remakes with new actors or practice runs on 3-D technology. I’ve had enough with the rip-offs (like Avatar, sorry those that love it, it’s a rip-off of Ferngully – however, this is another discussion entirely)! I’ll take 2-D any day, movies are still babies people, not yet 100 years old, let’s relax & enjoy and keep your popcorn to yourself!

    • OOOOOHHFF!! Our strongest condemnation yet! 😀

      I do think that the technology has a long way to go, and we have a long way to go to get accumstomed to it as well. Unfortunately for those that dislike it, its not going away anytime soon, but I’m sure Hollywood will still offer the 2D option for people who dont like the gimmick or the price bump.

      I’m with you on the return to new ideas thing, but when they trot out old movies in 3D I dont mind as much if they rebooted it or remade it or gave it a sequel that’s 80 years too late.

      And yeah, “Avatar” IS a whole ‘nother discussion. Save it for when I make my Movies That Everyone Should See: “Avatar” post!! LOL! 😀

  15. I don’t like 3D at all, because it does make me feel a little nauseous with the effects. Besides that, it’s expensive, I wear glasses so I have to put the 3D glasses on top of my glasses which is… awkward. And I feel like it’s an excuse to charge more, and to have things fly at your face from the screen.

Join in the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s