The Reign of 3D Is over in US Cinemas

Who the fuck goes to a cinema? Save pennies and get a projector at home. In a few years you will reach ROI (return on investment). Movie theaters suck at best. 3D is like a STD for the theater industry. It won't go away and keeps popping up when you want it the least.
 
Hollywood killed 3d themselves by refusing to actually film the movies in 3d. I'll gladly pay a premium to see a natively filmed 3d movie, because it feels much more natural rather than a forced effect. Unfortunately they make fewer and fewer each year, thinking we're too stupid to notice their crappy 2d conversions, then act surprised when nobody want to watch them.
 
If they wanted 3d to keep making money then hollywood/film makers should have learned something from Cameron and actually filmed the movies for 3d rather then half-assing it and doing a cheap post-production 3d or relying on gimmicky shit.

Seeing the Avatar movies/Life of Pi in 3d was AMAZING, seeing almost everything else was "meh" because the majority used 3d as an afterthought, thinking people would just fork over the extra money for cheapass use of 3d.
 
Can't help but remember Friday the 13th with the yo-yo gag.... that is 3D in a nutshell folks... glad its gone till the next brilliant asshole who thinks "THIS time they are gonna LOVE it"
 
Mut1ny said:
I love how since some of you think 3D is a "gimmick" or it gives you a headache that you're GLAD it's going away. Like as if 3D existing hurts you or is forced on you and those of us who do enjoy it can just fuck off.

I've never seen a theater either that DOESN'T have the latest and greatest NOT in 3D or only in the "shitty" theaters. You people act like it's forced on you and shoved down your throat.

Christ, the hate on this stuff here is so cringeworthy. People being happy that an option is being taken away...
Click to expand...

Yes.. it IS hurting us, because most of us DON'T want to watch the film in 3D, and theaters put the crap 3D on their biggest and best screens, while relegating the exact same film on 2D to the smaller "seats are at an odd angle, must have cut the room in half and made 2 out of it" viewing rooms.

THAT is what is keeping paying theater customers away...
 
Predicted fad failures.

A long list of obviously dumb shit - check
3D - check
VR gaming - not much longer.
 
I'm not a "fan" of 3D, but have never particularly hated it either.

The Martian was legitimately better in 3D than 2D.
So was Guardians of the Galaxy.
The Walk was really amazing in 3D.

I've come to the point where, if there's a movie I really want to see in theaters and it happens to have the 3D option, I'll usually opt. for it.

But my wife doesn't like 3D, so if it's a date, then no. And if it's not a movie I'm particularly excited for, or if it got less than a 90% on rotten tomatoes, I'll usually spare myself the $3-6 surcharge per ticket. No thanks.

And yeah, I'd take a 70mm IMAX film projector over 3D any day.
 
alexyang said:
I don't think James Cameron is to blame for the last 3D fad. Avatar was at least actually shot in 3D. Like others have already pointed out, a lot of the bad 3D films were actually shot in 2D and converted to 3D as a money grab.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with this assessment of 2D to 3D conversion. The thing about filming in native 3D is that it's really impossible to do well.

Our eyes evolved to do a few things simultaneously. First, they focus at a specific distance, whatever distance it is we're trying to focus on. They also converge at the same distance. That is to say, if you want to look at the tip of your nose, your eyes will simultaneously change their focus to view very close objects and converge so that you are cross-eyed. If you then look at a far off building or tree, or the horizon, your eyes will change their focus to view far-away items, and will spread apart so that they are effectively parallel.

3D movies ask your brain to do something it wasn't evolved to do. They ask your eyes to focus at a fixed distance (some yards away from the screen you are viewing), but converge at a point either behind or in front of the screen itself. Lots of brains don't like this and people will get immediate headaches or even nausea.

Now, to remedy this, all you have to do as a movie director is make sure that what you want the viewer to focus on is in the neutral plane where the focal distance and convergence distance are the same.

But that's a huge ask of a director. They already have to control framing, blocking, camera movement, exposure, depth of field, zoom, etc. You're adding on top of that the need to continuously adjust the relative angle of two cameras so that their images converge on the point the director would like people to look so as to not make them vomit.

It seems a much simpler task to just do it post production, where a team of people can have control over the 3D effect and make sure the focus of the shot is aways in the neutral plane. I'd argue that it's a better experience overall, even if it isn't as "pure" as most cinephiles would like.
 
Funny, the only reason I've gone to an IMAX theatre (or any theatre in the past 7 years) is for a can't miss 3D on the big screen, but considering I didn't even bother to go to GoG2 as I'd rather watch it in peace on my 3D at home, even that has changed and now I just have the disappearance of 3D in general to expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top