Am I the only person who doesn't get sore eyes or headaches when watching 3D movies?
I watched Avatar in 3D, and to be honest, I forgot I even had the glasses on around halfway through the movie - I almost walked out of the theater with them on.
:colbert:
I'm thinking it depends on whether or not your eyes are exactly as far apart as the movie thinks they are.
Or if you've got some kinda tiny head on you. I swear those things were digging into my head the whole time.
30 years on, it's still a gimmick.
Once they make me not have to wear the headache inducing glasses, then I will accept 3D as superior.
I spend the extra money for 3d when its going to be a quality film that they didn't just slap 3d on for the extra money. Avatar was well worth spending the extra for 3d. The 3d effects fit so perfect with the movie. Planning on watching Iron Man 2 in the Imax theater with 3d.
I think it's fine, as long as they were filmed in 3D.
[B]A:[/B] DID YOU WATCH AVATAR IT WAS SO AWEESSOMME!!
[B]
B: [/B]Yeah and it had a b story was corny and was overall mediocre.
[B]
A:[/B] BUT DID YOU WATCH IT IN 3D!?
[B]
B: [/B]No?
[B]
A:[/B] THEN THATS WHY!!!!
3D was cool in 1955.
It's not cool anymore.
When we finially implement the technology for dual panned screens, which means you don't have to use glasses, it might be cool and catch on
I fucking despise 3D. I'm not saying it's not a cool thing to implement into movies nowadays (despite the fact that EVERYONE is doing it and it's getting a little ridiculous), but 3D just gives me a fucking monster headache every time I try and watch it.
I don't mind watching small 3D nature films that are like 20-30 minutes long like at the IMAX theatres or watching 3D in rides at theme parks, but sitting there for 2+ hours with those things on my face? No thank you.
[QUOTE=geogzm;21551373]You don't HAVE to watch 3D films. It's up to you, you know.[/QUOTE]
Except it's fucking annoying when certain (and usually the best) theaters only show movies in 3D.
[QUOTE=dvondrake;21579229]If you haven't seen a 3D film since Spy Kids, I can only assume you don't know about the new polarized method, as opposed to the old and crappy red/blue specs method. The new one adds depth, not gimmick.
[b]Also I wear glasses and I have no problem with 3D. Just put the 3D glasses in front, no problem at all. No headaches, no nothing.[/b] All of you having headaches are just weak.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=71087&dateline=1259524372[/img] :respek: [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=27396&dateline=1271475449[/img]
Am I the only one who thought that Avatar's 3D was stupid? Yeah, the CGI was pretty good but I didn't see why everyone was raving about the 3D. It did give it some depth but it felt so minor that I would just prefer to watch it normally without glasses.
[QUOTE=OutOfExile;21581062]Am I the only one who thought that Avatar's 3D was stupid? Yeah, the CGI was pretty good but I didn't see why everyone was raving about the 3D. It did give it some depth but it felt so minor that I would just prefer to watch it normally without glasses.[/QUOTE]
I think a film like avatar tackled stereoscopy well because for the most part it actually embellished the frame and gave you other elements to focus on, with the best shots (like the exterior scenes, walking through the jungle) giving a deep canvas for the viewer to take in; this is also probably the main detractor for such a 3D method, as it means you can't really direct the viewers eye with effects like shallow focus like you used to (I'm sure people can attest to how odd it was when you were looking at something in the BG and it went blurry for no real reason)
3D is cool but should not replace a good story.
It's a gimmick that gets them lots of money.
Not to mention, if it's done well combined with an awesome story, you have a great movie on your hands.
[QUOTE=Reaper33;21551345]Smurfs 3D[/QUOTE]
I lol'd.
But then again i think that was already partially done with Avatar...
[editline]06:50AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=dvondrake;21579229]If you haven't seen a 3D film since Spy Kids, I can only assume you don't know about the new polarized method, as opposed to the old and crappy red/blue specs method. The new one adds depth, not gimmick.
Also I wear glasses and I have no problem with 3D. Just put the 3D glasses in front, no problem at all. No headaches, no nothing. All of you having headaches are just weak.[/QUOTE]
Spy kids 3D SUCKED, i vowed never to see a 3D film again after 90% was just blue, red and purple.
Avatar was the first 3D i've seen since then, i was satisfied that i could see GREEN.
the reason 3d movies suck is because they don't film it in 3d.
if they filmed it in 3d it would be diffrent.
[QUOTE=Grimezy15;21561377]Toy Story 3 is the only Movie in that list worth seeing in 3D, just like I saw the 1&2 Screening in 3D.
3D is just one massive fad now, even though the technology has been around for how long now?[/QUOTE]
but it's only really been good for a short while. hasn't really been in anything major for a long time, either.
also, the big re-debut of at-home nonanaglyph/polaroid 3D is helping out a lot
[editline]12:44AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Wii60;21583499]the reason 3d movies suck is because they don't film it in 3d.
if they filmed it in 3d it would be diffrent.[/QUOTE]...films, yes, but some actually are shot in 3D. supposedly even Avatar was (two cameras or a camera with two lenses or something like that).
not to mention that most of the movies using 3D are CGI films, where simply all they do is move and pivot the "camera" a bit.
like Up!, How to Train a Dragon, and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
yes 3d animations can do 3d because you can basically film it from anywhere with how many cameras you like
I don't mind 3D movies as long as it's not just post-production, "Ooh it'll get us more money!" or anything like that. If the movie was filmed in 3D then I'm okay with it.
I hate how it's a gimmick that ruins some movies in 2D viewing, and is another excuse for the assholes at the movie theaters to raise the ticket price.
[QUOTE=Wii60;21583499]the reason 3d movies suck is because they don't film it in 3d.[/QUOTE]
Most ARE filmed in 3D, but a few (Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland) are filmed in 2D and converted to 3D and they suck.
[QUOTE=Reaper33;21551345]
Jackass 3D (Seriously?
[/QUOTE]
.. No way :P
What i dont under stand, is, 3D has been used On and off over the years. Now we finally dug up some 3D movie 80s Shit. god i may never see another movie or tv show again.
A lot of the shitty movies coming out recently wouldn't make half as much the piss-poor amount they brought in if it weren't for 3D.
HOLY FUCK A NEW CATS VS DOGS I LOVED THAT MOVIE
[caps]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
