3D films
 

What is your opinion on 3D films?

I have nothing against 3D per se, but I can't watch them myself. You have to wear glasses to watch, and I already wear glasses. Wearing two pairs of glasses doesn't really work (I tried). I also tried just wearing the 3D glasses without my glasses, and I got a killer headache.

So yeah, I've only been to one 3D film. Never again.
Unless they advance the tech so you don't need glasses to watch.

I can't wear contacts because even thinking about that makes me feel sick... besides apparently my eyes are the wrong shape somehow. lol.

Anyway, it kind of vexes me how so many showings are 3D, and if you want 2D you have to go at an awkward time, or you have less choice of times.

Most of my friends my age (early 20s) don't like 3D either.

So... who exactly does like it?

I can take it or leave it re cinema.
I will not attend or avoid a film because it is 3D, it's all about the time and date for me.
I'm a glasses wearer too, and don't have any issue with putting the 3D glasses on over my own, neither does my Dad.

The best 3D I have seen was in panto.
I hope Limey & Dana will back me up on this. It really felt as if things were coming from the stage out past me. I saw people around me dodge, and children try to grasp things.

Oh, defo.

The 3d in panto was awesome.

I refuse to watch 3D movies.

I will admit that Avatar was cool but every movie I've seen after that has messed with my eyes. For two hours after a movie my eyes wouldn't focus. Also, the non-action parts in 3D movies just get annoying IMO.

Although, I feel 3D movies are just more of a trend. I've been hearing more and more complaints from people about them.

I have a slight preference for 3D, when the choice is available, but not enough to override the most convenient theater/showtime.

I have a bigger interest in seeing IMAX, but it is so much more inconvenient for me to get to an IMAX theater that I've never done so for a regular movie (when going to a museum that has IMAX, I usually try to see one of their shows, though).

It's just a way to make you part with more money to watch a movie in a theater, IMHO. So far I haven't seen any 3D movie that really impressed me as far as use of the technology. Anamorphic 3D is cool, and I thought it was neat seeing a couple of the things down at Disney and Universal, but for regular cinema? Meh. The story has to drive the movie, not the special effects. And they are 3D-ing all kinds of movies that really don't need or deserve it. What's next? 3D Chick Flicks?

I actively avoid 3D, because it is stupid.

As fas as IMAX, my local science museum has an IMAX theater which is a large dome-shaped structure which literally wraps around your entire field of vision. That, to me, is IMAX. Going to a regular, "flat" movie theater and paying extra for "IMAX" has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.



The whole world is stupid, and this thread is stupid also. The end.

I don't mind flat IMAX, as long as it's HUGE.

As I said, I haven't gone to any theater chain IMAXes, so I don't know if they are, but I've been to museum IMAXes which are flat, but still fill your field of vision due to size.

Not that a regular film couldn't do that, but IMAX cameras have the resolution to do that - and look good.

That's like the IMAX at the National Museum of the US Air Force. Awesome. But I want to see planes and such. I don't need to see Avatar in any way shape or form. Maybe if they fit it on the head of a pin.

3D has become stupid. If a movie really sucks, make it 3D! It's akin to bad musicians playing really loudly so you can't hear how bad they really suck. ;)

I don't really understand what an IMAX is. I've heard of it before, obviously. I googled it and I gather it's kind of a screen that wraps around you? That sounds weird. How do you know which part of it to look at? I imagine I'd be getting distracted by stuff in my peripheral vision all the time.

When you are seeing a documentary-type "museum" film, such as footage showing the majesty of a rainforest, the terrible destruction from the inside of a tornado, or point-blank footage of a space shuttle launch, you want that screen to wrap around your peripheral vision and literally submerge you inside the experience. You know how "surround sound" works? Well this is surround sight.

What I would've said if I were more eloquent. That's it exactly, flint.

Just like REAL life. IMAX is amazing. I went to the Galapagos Islands with Max one time - then I stayed for the second showing. It was equally as amazing.

I've never been to an Imax film either, but I know where an Imax cinema is. We should agree to meet up and go! That way if we find eachother odd at least we won't have to talk.

I'm thinking of the one in Waterloo. Handy for trains, the Tube and buses.
It's at the end of Stamford Street, where I spent a lot of my school hols with the G'rents.

It's been built in a pedestrian underpass that used to be a Cardboard City at night. A shameful seedy place where homeless people dossed down and hoped to be reasonably undisturbed.

During the day it was a necessary pedestrian walkthrough - planning meant you had to walk quite a way to cross the road otherwise. There were few people there during the day, but Grandad told us we could never give them money, because they would spend it on things that were bad for them. But that we should look them in the eye and shake out heads, raher than ignore them, because many of them had fought in the War (WWII) and couldn't help themselves.

On the flip side they G'rents always had a few coins for buskers or pavement artists. They pitied those who could not help themselves, but supported anyone working for a living.

Soz - back to Imax!
I'm game of you are.
Has to be after August though. I'm saving for Whitby before that.

Like in Harry Brown?

Couldn't tell you chick, never seen it. Sounds likely.

There were many built in the 60's/ 70's, on the understanding that it helped combine the needs of motorists and pedestrians *

Didn't work of course - motorists can only drive where roads are, pedestrians resent being funneled into tunnels and will simply cross through dangerous traffic insread. So the needs diverge even before you start making a "feature" of underground locations.


* Aylesbury - of Sundae fame - was used as a location for A Clockwork Orange. It being a location equally futuristic and grim. And pants. I understand Kubrick asked for the film not to be shown in his lifetime. Because of the Aylesbury shots. That's true that is.

not 3d, but totally worth seeing.

excerpt with underpass: SPOILER ALERT!!!!



trailers:

Thanks, I do my best. I hope I come off that way at least some of the time.

Just saw the trailer for Doctor Strange in 3D.

This may be the first film that I would categorize as MUST SEE IN 3D.

I can't watch 3D movies as they tend to trigger motion sickness with the glasses on and headaches with them off, soooo not for me! On the upside, if you've got a partner that loves 3d and you can't do it, they've invented 2d glasses to convert your movies back to normal! It's magical. https://store.dftba.com/products/2d-glasses

Simple but clever idea. Just the same lens in each eye

3D is a gimmick, a crutch. A well shot movie has enough information to be immersive and fool the mind that it is a real 3D enviroment, of course that is an art that takes skill.

We went to see The Force Awakens in 3D Imax, mostly because you could book specific seats, I think it was worth it, but we only go out to the movies once or twice a year, so when we do I want a good experience.

we went to see Ghostbusters the other day, not 3D or Imax, and I liked the sharpness, clarity and definition of digital projection

That's what's different about Doctor Strange - from the preview, it looks like they are doing something with the 3D that they could ONLY do with 3D.

I'm sure it will still look gorgeous in 2D, but I think you will be missing out on part of the experience with Doctor Strange in a way that you wouldn't with most movies.

I think you're probably right, to get the full effect you might need to see it in 3D. I'm guessing that because effects are digital now, you can't 'shoot' it in the same way.

I agree with one notable exception, Werner Herzog's documentary, Cave of Forgotten Dreams.
Tihs is a stupendous movie. I watched the trailers in 2D and the film fell, um, flat.

Exception that proves the rule;)

Probably restricted on what lighting could be used in that environment.

Having the depth perception made the movie. To be able to see how the drawings flowed across the rocks and followed the curved surfaces increased the feeling of awe by a factor of holy shit. Give or take a Dammmmn!

Holy shit, it's Razz. Hey there, girl. How you been?