[removed]
Comments
tranquil45 t1_j9tw106 wrote
I thought the same, but then I saw titanic on this rerelease. It’s fantastic. Cameron really gets it.
Outrageous-Event785 t1_j9u4gw4 wrote
Titanic 3D 4K was great. I've watched that film thousand times but when I watch it in IMAX in 3D 4K, I saw some small details that I've never seen in previous watch.
katycake t1_j9uu3yr wrote
How did James Cameron turn Titanic 3D, and have it be good? I thought digital 3D sucked because true perspective has to be done with two cameras.
I wouldn't make the odds zero that he actually didn't go out of his way and film Titanic with two cameras. Just to flex.
MrFoxManBoy t1_j9v1ujf wrote
We converted Titanic to 3D. My first gig was 3D conversion and the first two films I worked on were some of the hardest— Jurassic Park and Titanic.
None of it was native like the comment below suggests. We 100% converted it by using a mixture of stereo-painting and compositing. From there I worked on all of Phase 2 of Marvel, Star Wars, Pacific Rim, and my personal favorite, Mad Max: Fury Road. If you care I can explain what we did. If you want the short answer, a lot of fuckin work.
punished_snake15 t1_j9v3gqq wrote
So we have confirmation, the CGI in Pacific rim is native 3d whilst the live action is converted? Because the work on that movie was incredible, in part inspired by the work on Titanic 3d as well
MrFoxManBoy t1_j9v3smn wrote
No. Pacific Rim was also 100% converted. We converted it using 2D plates. We didn’t even have access to the VFX assets back then like we do now.
punished_snake15 t1_ja10ouj wrote
Your entire resume could just hang on pacific rim, I have a 3d tv still, and whilst 3d is regarded as a gimmick usually, it's almost like a revelation to the viewers when I put pacific rim 3d on, quite literally they don't want to watch other 3d movies I own, just that one because it's so grand
MrFoxManBoy t1_ja12fkg wrote
No lie. That was one of the hardest movies we ever did. All that rain and dynamic camera movement. But I am definitely proud of that one. Glad you dig it too!
katycake t1_j9xj3wz wrote
Oh. That's cool. Didn't know it could be done.
MrFoxManBoy t1_j9xm6pj wrote
Little trade secret too. Even most movies that claim they were shot in 3D, a lot of the time have to get converted anyways because something as simple as difference in light entering the two lenses unequally. Meaning if you watched the playback in 3D, it would look like a weird shimmer that only hurts your eyes. So we would have to choose one of the outputs from one of the cameras and convert that plate to 3D.
CorneliusCardew t1_j9uxyjk wrote
I can't find it now but I remember some interview where he said all it takes is time, money, and attention to detail to get post-conversion to like 80% of native 3D quality it's just that no one wants to do that.
sadlibra OP t1_j9twj3k wrote
This post was actually sparked by seeing Titanic 3D. I really really wish it was an option to see it in its original format. I was so distracted.
tranquil45 t1_j9ty67u wrote
Oh interesting! I loved it in 3d, I hope you get to see it on the big screen in 2d in the future :)
ViolentAmbassador t1_j9u4zxv wrote
Yeah that doesn't surprise me, I just haven't seen the re-release. I'd trust Cameron to be worth seeing in 3D but he's basically the only one.
tranquil45 t1_j9ugfcu wrote
This is the exact same view that I have :)
ChiltonGains t1_j9u2ufd wrote
I also think Scorsese used it effectively in HUGO.
Illustrious-Chair350 t1_j9twppy wrote
I thought gravity was pretty good in 3d, but for the most part its white objects on a black background, so I think it would have sold just as well in 2d. If I'm not in a group I will always choose regular because of the glasses over glasses thing.
LEJ5512 t1_j9umw12 wrote
I thought Gravity was great in 3D because the takes are soooo long that my brain didn't have to spend time reorienting itself. Action movies with quick cuts force me to spend a split-second to understand where everything is each time the camera cuts to a new view. But Gravity allowed me enough time to figure out the scene and where all the objects were.
ViolentAmbassador t1_j9u5b3c wrote
I didn't see Gravity in theaters at all, but I can see it being something that would be cool. I don't mean to imply that there aren't any others than what I listed, but they're pretty rare.
Same on the glasses over glasses issue
Illustrious-Chair350 t1_j9ulx7n wrote
Couldn't agree more! Crazy rare, I just checked my local theater out of curiosity and they don't have any 3D showtimes listed, last one I can remember is Avatar 2. I wonder if that is a nationwide phenomena or if my area is just particularly 3d averse lol.
[deleted] t1_j9u4e2g wrote
[removed]
IAmDotorg t1_j9u3x8b wrote
Titanic's conversion is equally as good. Of course, James Cameron spent the better part of a year individually reviewing every frame of it, which is a little nutty. But the results were spectacular.
moofunk t1_j9vouf5 wrote
I can imagine that every frame had the converter's name in the corner, and he would phone them up at 3 AM to ask them to change something right now.
Edit: Scratch that. He'd fly to their house in a helicopter at 3 AM.
cosmoboy t1_j9txddu wrote
I agree with this. I really enjoy when 3d is used to create depth a lot more than when it's trying to throw things into my face.
withWhomatethepizza t1_j9tzcdt wrote
I would agree and add Prometheus and Coraline (which came out in 3D before Avatar).
I think post-conversion 3D is often gimmicky. Avatar 2 in HFR 3D was pretty awesome imo.
IAmDotorg t1_j9u4a4t wrote
Post-conversion 3D where there weren't lidar maps made during filming is gimmicky.
Even Avatar 2 wasn't shot in real 3D, for the most part. (Of course, given it was mocaped and rendered.)
Live-shot 3D kind of sucks because you don't end up with enough data to do compositing correctly, and you can easily shoot things that end up with uncomfortable artifacts for the viewer that you can't fix after the fact.
CorneliusCardew t1_j9uyf02 wrote
Ignoring the movie's quality, The Polar Express came out in 2004 and blew me away when I saw it in IMAX 3D. Maybe it wouldn't hold up post Avatar but when the layered snowflakes came down over the WB logo I was pretty gobsmacked.
JonnyCarlisle t1_j9u9ulc wrote
In the age of CG animated films with 3D releases, your comment is blithering nonsense.
Know one of the best 3D movies? It was Into the Spiderverse.
Spray painting the screen? Marvelous.
Also, Gravity.
Also, most of Dreamworks, starting with those beards on How to Train Your Dragon.
News: When we have comfortable devices to enjoy 3D movies, you might find yourself enjoying 3D movies.
(MCU 3D still sucks)
jestergoblin t1_j9urrqu wrote
You're missing the third one:
#Piranha 3D.
wakejedi t1_j9twpcb wrote
Lego Movie was good, Ant Man 3, not so much
doc_55lk t1_j9try65 wrote
I don't hate them, I just hate having to wear glasses over my glasses.
orangemaroon25 t1_j9tvezd wrote
This exactly. The 3-D rides at Disney world are worse, probably because the glasses are shit quality
Dalehan t1_j9u3ooq wrote
I got the clip-on 3D glasses last time I was at the movies, beats having to wear two sets glasses at once. I could just wear contact lenses I guess, but my eyes get tired very quickly when I wear those. Not too optimal for movie viewing.
maestro826 t1_j9u7k6f wrote
Same!!! Game Changer!
skarros t1_j9uocsk wrote
Some years ago I read the romour/speculation that Avatar 2 will be the first (mainstream) 3D movie that works without 3D glasses.
Didn’t happen obviously but I hope Cameron (and others) continue to push the technology to this point.
ActivateGuacamole t1_j9tw7ip wrote
i don't hate them, but I don't want to pay extra for them.
Particular_Put5007 t1_j9uzcn8 wrote
It gives me a headache and sometimes makes me dizzy.
NappingYG t1_j9tpzsv wrote
Not me. I live them! I love the "I'm there" feel of it, the immersion. Though I do agree, some 3d movies just add pop put stuff for gimmics, and some turn the whole movie into some sort of "experience", at which point its hard to call it a movie. Gravity for example. Fantastic theatrical 3d experience, horrrrrrrible movie. But for majority of movies, I feel like the added depth is nice.
dstar-dstar t1_j9ug81i wrote
I agree with you. 3D is about that added depth. It’s makes an object in the foreground such as a Coke can visually interesting but if it where in 2D when everything is flat, your eye skips over it. Some people would call that distracting from the scene, but when I was in Art class my teacher taught me that by adding items such as different color variations of white at strategic points I could control where the viewer starts, moves around, and ends in my painting. I feel 3D brings that control for the director. It makes the artwork more exciting. I do feel that the intention needs to be a 3D movie from the start or a past movie that can be converted where the technology wasn’t there at the time but 3D would add to it visually. I also understand wearing glasses can be uncomfortable but to me the experience of 3D is worth it and I love it. I would like to see 3 really high quality 3D movies a year as to not over due the experience factor and not converted to try and make an extra buck.
WoodSheepClayWheat t1_j9uosgd wrote
Immersion? I have never seen a 3D movie where the 3D didn't make it obvious every single second that I was watching something fake.
A40 t1_j9tsznj wrote
They give me a headache. But then, 'virtual reality' makes me nauseous in a few seconds..
sadlibra OP t1_j9tw440 wrote
They give me a headache too! And sometimes I need to take the glasses off to rest my eyes a little but then the screen is unwatchable because it’s all blurry. It’s just not a fun time usually.
BroadInfluence4013 t1_j9ud2nh wrote
Why do you need to rest your eyes? And I’m honestly wondering if you see 3D the same as everyone else. You know a lot of people can’t see 3D properly, right?
sadlibra OP t1_j9ueo7c wrote
I don’t know, it just gets stressful on my eyes after a while. It’s possible I’m one of those people.
tomandshell t1_j9tvlox wrote
I enjoy 3D. Best case scenario is when they offer both formats and let people choose, so we can all see a movie the way we prefer.
IWishIHavent t1_j9txw6u wrote
I have never experienced a movie which was actually better in 3D. I don't know if it's the awkward glasses, or the expectation my brain has of 2D images on a 2D canvas, but these days I make a point to not watch the 3D version of a movie.
It's not that I don't like them, I just don't believe they improve the experience in any way.
BroadInfluence4013 t1_j9udpzl wrote
Something like 1 in 10 people can’t see 3D properly. Perhaps you’re one of them.
IWishIHavent t1_j9ujsc0 wrote
Oh, I can see 3D alright. I'm one of the people who does a little "glasses on, glasses off" and "close one eye, then the other" test to check 3D quality.
It just don't improve a movie in my opinion.
SoDakWill t1_j9ttr7w wrote
I wanted to like it.. I really did. But the clunkiness of the equipment (glasses mainly) and the unnecessary 3d effects when not needed/wanted just was too much. I mean, I bought the latest 3d tv and dvd player back in the day but it just gave me headaches (literally and figuratively) in the long run.
rodvinsky t1_j9tynsl wrote
No, i miss them every day and i hate people like you for making them go away
sadlibra OP t1_j9u1dx7 wrote
I mean I didn’t start a petition to ban them or anything lol. Also they didn’t go away, you can still see stuff in 3D.
BroadInfluence4013 t1_j9udgsf wrote
Lol, right? It just adds depth.
WoodSheepClayWheat t1_j9up8e0 wrote
And worse clarity, and less light, and crap to wear on your face.
[deleted] t1_j9tysbf wrote
To me it is a gimmick. If you like it and enjoy it, awesome, but if it is the big selling point of a movie, that usually means the movie is a big piece of shit that needs a gimmick.
isthiswhereiputmy t1_j9u0ida wrote
I really enjoy 3D movies with an at home projector and watch one or two a month. Determining the scale of things on screen just seems easier viewing in 3D and I kinda like that wearing the goofy glasses prevents me from glancing at my phone for a couple hours.
McRambis t1_j9u34rx wrote
I hate it with a passion, with Avatar being the only exception because it was so incredibly done.
After Avatar there were so many half-assed post-production 3D movies hitting the market that I got pissed about:
- Having to wear special glasses
- Effects that did not enhance the movie at all
- Gimmicky shots of things flying towards the camera
- Having to pay more to see a movie because the only showing is 3D with increased tickets. I love paying more for a less enjoyable experience.
WillysJeepMan t1_j9trjxm wrote
For me it depends...
If the film was originally shot in 3D, then I enjoy them immensely. But if the film was originally shot in 2D and then processed to create a 3D version, then no... I do not enjoy them.
I was fortunate enough to go to theaters during the mini-resurgence of 3D films back in the 80's and see these films during their theatrical runs...
- Parasite
- Treasure of the Four Crowns
- Friday the 13th III in 3D
- Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn
- Jaws III in 3D
- Amityville 3D
- Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone
Shitty_Fat-tits t1_j9uj747 wrote
I was too young to see Friday III in 3D, and always heard about how great the effects were. Still holding out hope I'll catch a revival screening someday...
WillysJeepMan t1_j9uky4k wrote
You and me both! I'd love to revisit these films on the big screen again.
Throwaway_Codex t1_j9tyidg wrote
Some conversions are very good, though. Most of them are effects heavy, so while the live action often doesn't look great with the 3D conversion, the animation effects are easily retrofitted for 3D. I've been to over 100 3D flicks.
I was just a bit too young when those '80s movies came out but would have loved to have gone to them. I have a 3D TV, though, and bought Metalstorm as one of the BDs. I also own two versions of F13 3D; have watched the anaglyph version but not the active 3D.
blither t1_j9tu1cn wrote
They are not for me. Personal preference.
Throwaway_Codex t1_j9u0fk0 wrote
I like them, have been to over 100 in the theater and own a few 3D Blu-rays as well. If a movie is in 3D, I go to that version exclusively, and only twice that I can recall have I not (Miss Peregrine's where I waited too long and the theater yanked the 3D version, and Billy Lynn's where the 3D didn't come to my town). I even went to No Time to Die in 3D, and I'm not sure a lot of people even knew it was released in 3D (I didn't know it was going to be). The only issue I've ever found is the slight dimming that happens with the specs, though that varies between theater and auditorium. Sometimes the bright levels have been excellent, as good as any 2D movie.
Fuckaguybaked t1_j9u3o5s wrote
Nobody likes 3D movies except people who have only seen 1 or 2 of them. After that people realize that it’s just a way for the theatre to charge you more money for an experience that’s actually worse. Sure you get some objects coming at you but what it really does is reduce how much of the movie you can really see. The background gets less attention and “fuzzier” and you can only see the full detail on whatever central character or thing is the focus of the scene. You get less of the movie. On top of that, the 3D glasses are often uncomfortable and make some people feel sick (I’ve never had that).
I watched avatar 2 recently in 3D and that’s one of the better ones. They put more effort in making the 3D a part of that movie than most but it still not worth it. I left the theatre wishing I watched it on normal IMAX rather than 3D IMAX.
BroadInfluence4013 t1_j9ue0n5 wrote
What I lie. I wish every movie were in 3D. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean mean some of us don’t love them.
maestro826 t1_j9u7cfj wrote
Nope, Love them! Glad I still have my 3D TV working!
But also it depends on the movie.
Tron: Legacy, Dr.Strange, AntMan, Dredd, Avatars are all fantastic examples
bluejester12 t1_j9tvoq3 wrote
The best 3d "movies" I saw were Shrek in 4d and T2, both at Universal Studios.
rhntr_902 t1_j9twt6c wrote
As someone who can't watch 3D movies (chronic migraines with glasses, can't wear the 3D glasses without screwing my head up), I also hate 3D movies, and am a little upset that the theaters around my place don't offer standard releases until a week after the 3D version came out. Ant Man being the most recent example of a film that they released in 3D here but not standard edition.
BroadInfluence4013 t1_j9udkwb wrote
Why would you want to see the recent Ant Man anyway?
rhntr_902 t1_j9uk7o7 wrote
I'm a sucker for the Marvel movies. Me and my best friend try to see as many in theatre as possible. I also like the ones most people don't, like Multiverse of Madness was great to me; Although it was just basically if Evil Dead was made for Marvel, which I have zero complaints about. I enjoyed Jonathan Majors in Loki, and am excited for what he is going to bring. Paul Rudd also adds a likeability to a hard to like character.
Buuuuuuuuuuuut I understand why people hate them and can't stand them. They don't appeal to everyone, and the people they do appeal to have been let down a number of times recently.
BroadInfluence4013 t1_j9ums7r wrote
Oh, I watch almost all of them but this is the worst reviewed Marvel movie to date.
-cosmic-bitch- t1_j9txqam wrote
It makes me really nauseous. Even the newer HFR 3D, while less blurry, it still hurts my eyes.
SnowyDesert t1_j9txv5s wrote
they still make them? This post would have been more relevant like 10 years ago, wtf? Or do you mean cgi/animated movies?
sadlibra OP t1_j9u1gv5 wrote
No, I mean 3D. Glasses and all.
IAmDotorg t1_j9u4i5i wrote
Hey, did you know there was a pandemic recently, too?
What else have you not noticed in the last decade?
SnowyDesert t1_j9u8m2t wrote
are you asking me or OP?
Also what's up with your weird defensive stance? Did my question trigger your 3D fanboyism or something?
Cideous t1_j9u5kiu wrote
Avatar: The Way of Water released like 2 months ago...
SnowyDesert t1_j9v786v wrote
yes but that's like one movie in a few😅unlike around 2010 when almost everything had to be 3D. Even movies like Jackass..😅
sledgehammer_77 t1_j9tyzzo wrote
Jackass 3D was the best use of the technology I've ever seen.
QuoteGiver t1_j9tz615 wrote
If immersion is what you’re looking for, I would assume you really just want better 3D.
strikinglightning t1_j9tzp2u wrote
I really like 3d, I’m hoping my home projector does not stop working anytime soon because there are hardly any new 4K projectors that do 3d. Does suck having to import discs from Japan or Australia. Hoping the success of avatar 2 some companies will do a firmware upgrade to 3d on their new projectors.
IAmDotorg t1_j9u58e9 wrote
There's no consumer 4K container format for them. That said, there are still lots of 4K-compatible 3D projectors. Epson still makes them, Benq makes them, Optima makes them. And when you get into the $$$$ range, there's quite a few, too. Barco makes a couple, IIRC.
Unfortunately, a firmware update won't help on a projector that doesn't have 3D support, because you need a wireless or IR sync signal being generated for the glasses.
IMO, at-home 3D will end up with a resurgence as newer feather-weight VR/AR headsets start to come down in price. The viewing experience of a 3D movie with a headset is orders of magnitude better better than with 3D glasses.
strikinglightning t1_j9u7rdf wrote
I was hoping the epson ls12000 was going to have 3d but i didn’t as I’m still useing an epson 5030ub, might have to get a Sony vw325es but that is 2 years old now
IAmDotorg t1_j9ujmvc wrote
Then 5040 and 5050 are faux-K and 3D. I think the 5060 is, too? The 5040 can't do 4k/60 in anything but 8 bit 4:2:0, though, so it has some shitty 4k limitations in a world of video devices that force 60fps.
[deleted] t1_j9u1qh2 wrote
[deleted]
DopplerShiftIceCream t1_j9u21mf wrote
I thought that was resolved in 2017.
sadlibra OP t1_j9u2fs2 wrote
Resolved how?
NOT000 t1_j9u31zg wrote
last 1 i saw gave me a headache
[deleted] t1_j9u4eyg wrote
[removed]
Admirable-Garage5555 t1_j9u5q5q wrote
In the past I’d be inclined to agree with you, however I saw two movies in 3D last year and it changed my opinion.
I saw Jaws in 3D (not to be mistaken with abomination that is Jaws 3-D) because they only rereleased in that format last summer. I absolutely loved it. I didn’t find myself noticing any bad 3D conversions and on a few occasions, the 3D felt like it enhanced some of the shots.
I also saw the most recent Avatar in IMAX 3D and that was a visual spectacle.
I really think the technology is starting to catch up and we will see 3D movies become more seamless and polished in the next few years.
Cideous t1_j9u5wah wrote
The 3D "experience" ruins even the best films for me, but I rarely go to a theatre to watch a film these days, so I'm fine waiting until a non-3D version is released.
Councilist_sc t1_j9u70l7 wrote
I don’t hate them but unless it’s an Avatar movie I’m probably not going to go see anything in 3D. Both Avatar movies are completely worth the 3D experience. I did however really like the recent Titanic 3D rerelease. Overall though I do generally agree.
madchad90 t1_j9u7535 wrote
People still watch movies in 3d?
JesusIsMyLord666 t1_j9u7nxi wrote
3D would be great if they ever manage to eliminate 3D-crosstalk. But they haven't and it just makes everything seem out of fokus.
I much prefer the visual clarity you get without it.
TimeWellWasted25 t1_j9u8aic wrote
I loved them when they were really popular (from 2010-2017) and I’d say I still love them now, even though I haven’t seen an impressive one in a while.
TerraTF t1_j9u92bl wrote
I haven't seen Avatar 2 yet because the only IMAX showings near me were IMAX 3D.
raven47172 t1_j9u95rd wrote
I saw the first Jaws in 3d last year and it was surprisingly good.
mistercloob t1_j9uailz wrote
I like them when there’s going to be crazy special effects like with a Dr Strange movie or other similar things where there’s a bunch going on screen, I enjoy the depth of field it gives during big battle sequences or trippy effects, however I will only see 3D in IMAX and it’s certainly not my preferred format.
Nathan_Poe t1_j9uawjb wrote
I don't like 3D movies and refuse to go to them any more.
The thing is the real world is 3D, so ideally a movie in 3D should help immerse the viewer into the experience.
But directors don't use 3D to mimic the real world, they use 3D to show off 3D effect.s
If there's a monster with teeth, it's going to be leaping out to bite you in the face...if someone is holding a spear, you know that spear is going to come jabbing out at you. it's the visual equivalent of a Wilhelm scream.
3D COULD be great, but directors need to stop using it like the shiny toy they got for their birthday and want to show all their friends at school
BobbyCrispyGuitar t1_j9ufk1c wrote
3D movies are fun to watch at first, but I find the 3D effect wears off after a while and you don't even notice it.
JAYKEBAB t1_j9ufk2q wrote
Idk. I've only ever seen like 1 3D movie ever and that was Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part 1 at IMAX 3D. Unfortunately it was only the first 15 or 30 minutes in 3D and the rest was regular 2D but it was pretty cool nonetheless.
MagicBez t1_j9ufql4 wrote
I'm fortunate in that my eyes both work well and it doesn't make me nauseous or distract me at all but I still never feel any benefit from having it and find the glasses a bit annoying to wear. I associate 3D with novelty stuff like Muppets 3D (which is great) rather than actually seeing a film.
Back when it had its 2000s resurgence there were people saying everything would switch to 3D which felt a bit like thinking that the invention of sculptures rendered paintings obsolete.
Ecstatic_Custard7009 t1_j9ujqfi wrote
the only time i watched 3D movies and it was terrible, spend most of the time watching a 2D movie and wondering when a 3D but is going to happen, then it does and it goes back to 2D for another hour, now unfortunately no matter how much better 3D has gotten since then i will never find out, early 3D movies ruined it for everyone taking it seriously now lol
scottmushroom t1_j9useqc wrote
I don't hate them but I generally go for 2d showings unless it's something I know was made for 3d the right way. Most of the lazy post conversions are done poorly and give me a headache.
some-scribbles t1_j9usilm wrote
I have an eye condition that, among other things, messes with my depth perception. I can get around normally, but it becomes especially noticable during 3D movies. So for me they're just paying more money to wear stupid glasses over my normal ones in order to watch a 2D movie. They have absolutely no appeal for me.
lookatmecats t1_j9uv4yk wrote
It's almost always an annoying gimmick, like shaking chairs and scents. If it's more of an "experience" type thing like Avatar then it makes more sense, but if I'm there to actually enjoy a story then it gets in the way
misterfriend t1_j9uvp2u wrote
A movie made to be pure spectacle and nothing else can be enhanced this way. Anything else suffers due to the distraction.
PrimeLasagna t1_j9ux448 wrote
I love 3D 🙁
tanj_redshirt t1_j9uxwra wrote
I only see out of one eye so the effects don't work for me.
Heck, I don't see 3D in real life. ;)
DieFanboyDie t1_j9uyav6 wrote
I have a hard time with 3d; others do not. Not all 3d is created equal, but with the price of the ticket I don't take the chance of it not being good and lessening the experience, so I don't watch them in 3d. IMO 3d is fine if it adds to the film, but if the film NEEDS 3d to be worth watching, it wasn't a good film. Like if someone says "it was so much better in 3d," it was lacking significantly in other areas.
Klatu17 t1_j9v00r9 wrote
My impressions of 3D movie’s completely changed after watching “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse.” Before quitting entirely, give that movie a watch in 3D, it was SO well done!
exaslave t1_j9v0nk1 wrote
I hate they also make 2D showings harder to find on early days. At least where I live.
Sharkus1 t1_j9v0q28 wrote
Pretty sure most the movie going population does. That’s why the fad died.
sadlibra OP t1_j9v9f0m wrote
You wouldn’t know it by the comments! Seems like most people enjoy them
BigMacCombo t1_j9v1zy6 wrote
Not me. I wish the audiences were less hostile toward technical advancements. On a similar note, I'd also like to lump in high frame rates as well. I'm not expecting or want these to become the standard, but other technical aspects like aspect ratio, color/B+W, film/digital, etc are all still valid choices that aren't met with such hostility and I can only hope one day it'll be the same with 3D and HFR.
AndroidFive t1_j9v2ses wrote
yes, just a reason to jack the price
kuddlesworth9419 t1_j9v3b7b wrote
I get a headache with 3D so yea.
mormondad t1_j9v7azt wrote
No. I love 3D movies. Watch them whenever I get the chance. In fact, I think I am going to take the wife to go see the Titanic 3D rerelease tomorrow.
BJ22CS t1_ja7uosq wrote
I only hate them b/c I have a lazy eye, so the 3D effect doesn't work for me since I'm only looking at the screen with one of my eyes at a time.
letsgetrandy t1_j9tt0ct wrote
I haven't tried recently so I don't know if there have been any advances in quality, but I know the last time I tried one it made me dizzy and gave me a headache. Was not an experience I wanted to repeat.
Yabanjin t1_j9ttg6d wrote
I love 3D movies. But not every movie needs to be in 3D.
TylerDurdenUMD t1_j9ttwvy wrote
Ambivalent except for: JACKASS 3D
That was amazing.
stefanwerner5000 t1_j9tqqq2 wrote
Some movies i only enjoy because of 3d, like Pacific rim or sin city 2. i never watched them in 2d.
ButtsCarlton97 t1_j9tqt0s wrote
I like them because it looks cool when I’m stoned and also for example Toy Story 3 the glasses hid my crying
ViolentAmbassador t1_j9ttxob wrote
In my life, there have been two movies where I thought the 3D was actually worth something, and they're both Avatar movies. In every other situation I think 3D is a worse experience all around.