Are 3D movies getting out of hand?

[matrix_ghost]

His 'opinion' is wrong, Alice's conversion to 3D is proof of that. If us as patrons keep paying for it they will continue to make them, we have to nip this in the butt now, we need some sort of grass roots internet campaign or something. It has to start with Clash of the Titans.

I don't see Alice In WOnderland is proof of that. It is clearly your opinion and not that of the audience. Again there are audiences who prefer to see movies where 3-d creates depth and there are audiences who prefer to see movies with objects coming at them in 3-d.
I saw Alice In Wonderland in 3-d IMAX and i didn't have any problems with it. In fact if we converted scenes are as good ( or maybe better) as what we've got in Alice In Wonderland and the Potter scenes in IMAX 3-d , i would gladly pay the extra bucks.


Also off topic. From the Slashfilm link WB is talking about 9 movies that will be 3-d releases in 2011.
I know that these movies will be 3-d releases :

Green Lantern
Happy Feet 2
Harry Potter & Deathly Hallows prt 2
Sucker Punch

What are the other 5 movies

 

[Oddzball]

Ever since Avatar, there has been a constant amount of 3-D movies coming out. Nearly 75 percent of movies coming out this year are 3-D. Spider-Man and Transformers 3 will even be 3-D movies. Do you think this 3-D movie craze is going to far or is this really the wave of the future like Movie industries says it will?

3d gets a positive buzz among the potential audience the studios want to hit. Until sales figures say it isn't working, they'll try it. 3D in the 50s was done out of fear of television. These days it's fear of a lack of funding.

 

[jmc]

I don't see Alice In WOnderland is proof of that. It is clearly your opinion and not that of the audience. Again there are audiences who prefer to see movies where 3-d creates depth and there are audiences who prefer to see movies with objects coming at them in 3-d.
I saw Alice In Wonderland in 3-d IMAX and i didn't have any problems with it. In fact if we converted scenes are as good ( or maybe better) as what we've got in Alice In Wonderland and the Potter scenes in IMAX 3-d , i would gladly pay the extra bucks.

There is no comparison between the 3D for Alice and Avatar. The issue is the audience is being played for fools, I can't tell you the number of people I heard going into the theatre thinking Alice was the same type of 3D as Avatar, I had to explain to a few people the difference. You want 3-D films? Fine, do it properly like Avatar did, don't present this piss weak excuse for 3D and call it good, it's a cheap product and should be labeled as such.

 

[matrix_ghost]

There is no comparison between the 3D for Alice and Avatar. The issue is the audience is being played for fools, I can't tell you the number of people I heard going into the theatre thinking Alice was the same type of 3D as Avatar, I had to explain to a few people the difference. You want 3-D films? Fine, do it properly like Avatar did, don't present this piss weak excuse for 3D and call it good, it's a cheap product and should be labeled as such.

If people are expecting this to be like Avatar then they obviously haven't paid attention to the Alice In Wonderland trailers which have been attached to prints of Avatar. Here in Hollandwe have had the first teaser of AIW attached to Avatar and people weren't blind to the fact that everything was flying towards them. So to say that they expected it to be like Avatar is in my opinion a bit naieve.


While Alice in Wonderland has the it's fair share about Avatar followers , i don't think in terms of audience they are the same. AIW audience is primarly parents with kids and/or Burton/Depp fans.
And i do think that those parents with kids saw other 3-d movies in the past.
Stuff like Disney's G-Force or Ice Age 3 . Those movies also did well and were the same type ( stuff flying towards you).
So again don't think that 3-d should be always be about depth. There is a difference.


And i want 3-d films done good. Even if it's converted. By your logic Cameron ( or for that matter guys like Peter Jackson with LOTR or George Lucas with the SW movies) should never release Titanic as a 3-d feature since they are going to be converted and therefore in your words "is going to be piss weak excuse for 3-d."

 

[DarKJediKnight]

I don't know if reaching out to the 3D images and not feeling them is "out of hand"...

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[redfirebird2008]

His 'opinion' is wrong, Alice's conversion to 3D is proof of that. If us as patrons keep paying for it they will continue to make them, we have to nip this in the butt now, we need some sort of grass roots internet campaign or something. It has to start with Clash of the Titans.

The problem is the theater owners are complicit in this too. My local theater refused to offer Avatar or Alice in 2D. I'm sure they will pull the same stunt with Clash of the Titans. There's 100,000 people here and they do like to go to the movies, so they will keep going to the only option available rather than boycotting it.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I don't know if reaching out to the 3D images and not feeling them is "out of hand"...

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[jmc]

If people are expecting this to be like Avatar then they obviously haven't paid attention to the Alice In Wonderland trailers which have been attached to prints of Avatar. Here in Hollandwe have had the first teaser of AIW attached to Avatar and people weren't blind to the fact that everything was flying towards them. So to say that they expected it to be like Avatar is in my opinion a bit naieve.

And to expect the general public who don't follow film making as closely as other to know there is a difference is equally naive. And as for trailers, please, not every screening of Avatar had Alice as a trailer, mine certainly didn't.

While Alice in Wonderland has the it's fair share about Avatar followers , i don't think in terms of audience they are the same. AIW audience is primarly parents with kids and/or Burton/Depp fans.
And i do think that those parents with kids saw other 3-d movies in the past.
Stuff like Disney's G-Force or Ice Age 3 . Those movies also did well and were the same type ( stuff flying towards you).
So again don't think that 3-d should be always be about depth. There is a difference.

And if there's a difference it should be advertised as such. 'Now playing in 3D conversion', a fairly simple statment to add to a poster.

And i want 3-d films done good. Even if it's converted. By your logic Cameron ( or for that matter guys like Peter Jackson with LOTR or George Lucas with the SW movies) should never release Titanic as a 3-d feature since they are going to be converted and therefore in your words ''is going to be piss weak excuse for 3-d.''

No they shouldn't, because they weren't designed for it.

The problem is the theater owners are complicit in this too. My local theater refused to offer Avatar or Alice in 2D. I'm sure they will pull the same stunt with Clash of the Titans. There's 100,000 people here and they do like to go to the movies, so they will keep going to the only option available rather than boycotting it.

No argument there. Two of my local theatres played only 1 2D session a day of Alice and only a hand full for Avatar. My fear was always this would lead cinemas to force us into paying more for already overpriced tickets, which unfortunately seems to be coming true.

 

[redfirebird2008]

No argument there. Two of my local theatres played only 1 2D session a day of Alice and only a hand full for Avatar. My fear was always this would lead cinemas to force us into paying more for already overpriced tickets, which unfortunately seems to be coming true.

I feel the same way. My theater was already charging a ridiculous $9+ for a night time show (with crappy, dimly lit projection and mediocre surround sound) and now they are charging $12+ for 3D while not even offering the 3D movies in 2D.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have no problem with 3-D.

It's like complaining that movies are in color.

3-D is here to stay whether you like it or not. Avatar's box office made sure of that.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's like complaining that movies are in color.

Did audiences in the late 1930's have to put on special glasses to be able to watch a movie in color? No. The comparison is invalid.

 

[Danalys]

it applies directly to the people talking about need.
a movie doesn't need colour for a good story
a movie doesn't need sound for a good story
a movie doesn't need SFX for a good story
a movie doesn't need naturalist acting for a good story.

need is irrelevant. added experience is relevant.

also do you complain about wearing sunglasses on a sunny day?


conversions are a lesser fakery of the real deal that will sow confusion about the benefits of 3D.

 

[redfirebird2008]

also do you complain about wearing sunglasses on a sunny day?

Do you ever wear sunglasses indoors?

My main problem with the glasses is that they bother my peripheral vision. While watching Avatar in 3D, I was always aware of the glasses sitting on my nose. It distracted the hell out of me.

 

[Danalys]

edit : double post

 

[Danalys]

yes i did when it was cool to and they filter brightness a **** load more that 3D glasses do.

anyway a wrap-around option for glasses could fix that. it's not a problem with 3D but the implementation. hell you're probably psyching yourself out about the glasses anyway. it's different so you notice it then concentrate on it.

 

[redfirebird2008]

yes i did when it was cool to and they filter brightness a **** load more that 3D glasses do.

anyway a wrap-around option for glasses could fix that. it's not a problem with 3D but the implementation. hell you're probably psyching yourself out about the glasses anyway. it's different so you notice it then concentrate on it.

That's definitely part of it. But it doesn't change the situation. I don't go to the movie theater very often (literally just a few times per year) so it's not like I can condition myself to getting used to it.

 

[Danalys]

but the thing is not to be so self centred about it. people are enjoying it. you can get used to the eccentricities. personally i found avatar a bit too out of screen for my liking (rather than being a window to another world) but your eye separation and proximity to screen all effect the effect. and most importantly it doesn't take anything away from the experience. unless you get head aches or are weirded out by glasses. but then see things in 2D, and i hope there always is a 2D option for such people, there certainly will be when it comes to home viewing atleast.

 

[redfirebird2008]

but the thing is not to be so self centred about it. people are enjoying it. you can get used to the eccentricities. personally i found avatar a bit too out of screen for my liking (rather than being a window to another world) but your eye separation and proximity to screen all effect the effect. and most importantly it doesn't take anything away from the experience. unless you get head aches or are weirded out by glasses. but then see things in 2D, and i hope there always is a 2D option for such people, there certainly will be when it comes to home viewing atleast.

The 2D "option" thing is what pisses me off. My local theater refuses to offer 3D movies in 2D. Avatar was on three 3D screens when it came out but zero 2D screens. Alice is on two 3D screens right now (no 2D screens) with Avatar still occupying the other 3D screen.

As for self-centeredness, I call nonsense on that one. We all have the right to enjoy what we enjoy or believe what we believe without being called self-centered because we don't agree with the majority on something. In fact, the Constitution contains many clauses protecting the rights of minority opinions. t:

 

[Danalys]

you could wear an eye patch, but paying more would be unfair.

also by your constitution i'm perfectly at right to call you self-centred.

 

[Danalys]

you could wear an eye patch, but paying more would be unfair.

also by your constitution i'm perfectly at right to call you self-centred.

 

[redfirebird2008]

you could wear an eye patch, but paying more would be unfair.

also by your constitution i'm perfectly at right to call you self-centred.

You can call it whatever the hell you want. Not gonna stop me from speaking out about it. Avatar in 3D isn't the most jaw-dropping theatrical experience of my life. That would be the IMAX scenes of The Dark Knight, thank you very much. t:

 

[redfirebird2008]

As for self-centeredness, I would argue that the very idea of watching a movie is self-centered. The only time I can think of when it isn't self-centered is a parent that is forced to sit through a movie with their child because the child wants to see it. Guys go to so-called "chick flick" movies with girls so they can get in their pants (self-centered behavior). Guys drag their girlfriends along with them to a nerd movie (self-centered behavior). Girls drag their boyfriends along with them to a chick flick (self-centered behavior). I go to watch a movie I'm interested in because I want to be entertained, not because I'm concerned about the entertainment of someone else. This same thing applies to pretty much anyone. To deny this would be lying to yourself. Think of your favorite movie. Then think of why you watch it. You'll realize it's a self-centered motivation.

 

[Danalys]

it's about trying to effect policy at the expense of others. you can think what you like, say what you like, but the anti 3D talk seems over represented to me. the pro represented by ticket sales instead.

i aint saying there shouldn't be adam sandler films for example. i just don't watch them.

 

[redfirebird2008]

it's about trying to effect policy at the expense of others. you can think what you like, say what you like, but the anti 3D talk seems over represented to me. the pro represented by ticket sales instead.

i aint saying there shouldn't be adam sandler films for example. i just don't watch them.

My complaints on this tiny Internet forum will not change a damn thing and you know it. This isn't the same as someone busting out with a cell phone in a theater and distracting a bunch of people.

I am not against the idea of 3D. I am against the idea of how it's being implemented right now. Give me 3D without the glasses and I'd be fine with it.

 

[Danalys]

you're just a small part of the overall issue as i see it. you just happened to be someone i was conversing with.