Old-style 3D is lame. But the new use of 3D? AWESOME.
By “new use”, I mean as it was used in the last Harry Potter movie. We saw it last night. There were no effects that screamed “look at me, I’m 3D!!” – but there was a lot of subtle use that made everything on screen just look great. There were only a few times when the 3D effect was emphasized enough to make me really notice it (such as the liberation of the resurrection stone from the golden orb), and they were fantastic.
This is the second “new-style” 3D movie I’ve seen, and I’m loving it. What do you guys think?
My only real complaint about 3D is that it wasn’t meant for people with glasses. Wearing a set of 3D glasses over a normal set of glasses is Really annoying.
I don’t mind 3D but I do find it disorienting and vaguely nauseating when someone gets up and walks across my line of vision in a 3D movie (this happened about ten times when I saw Avatar in 3D - blegh). Basically, if that rare event never happens, great! But, it sucks so much when it does happen that I often prefer to not risk it.
My husband wear glasses and really doesn’t care for 3D so when we are looking to see a movie we choose our Theater on the basis of who is showing the movie sans 3D. This sucks because my favorite theater in town (old Masonic Temple, seats are leather couches and the theater is a bar) has taken to only showing 3D movies recently.
I’m with you Kat. I think 3D can be used in cool ways but for those of us who HAVE to wear glasses to see the movie, wearing that extra pair sucks. Especially when you have a tiny face, like me and they don’t want to stay on anyway >_<
WriterRyan, Like I need another thing to keep track of? And I’m sure someone out there is working on custom prescription 3D glasses, but they’re going to be so expensive that most of us won’t be able to afford them.
Not that geeks are known to spend too much money on the newest, shiniest gadget or anything…
I wear glasses, and I don’t have much trouble with wearing the 3D glasses over them. But I have really small lenses in a minimalist frame; I know that they wouldn’t fit so well over larger lenses in a heavier frame.
What we need are clip-on 3D lenses to attach to our glasses frames!
I have to just put my two-cents in here: 3D will probably never be a thing I ever get into. It’s pretty much entirely inaccessible to someone without true binocular vision. One-eyed Skjoldulfr’s just see 3D movies as blurry and headache inducing. That said, I’m thrilled that the technology is improving, as it will lead to other cool things! I’m all about progress. It’s just not for me.
I neither wear glasses, nor am missing an eye and I actually can’t stand 3D for a few reasons.
First is that they generally don’t train projectionists to adjust their equipment for a 3D movie. This results in the movie being projected too dimly, having the colors look desaturated, dark, and muddy. Admittedly, this isn’t an inherent problem with 3D and could be fixed by proper attention given to projection standards.
Second is that when a movie is made for 3D, it almost always includes what I’ve come to call “Paddleball Moments.” In a scene in “Monsters vs. Aliens,” there’s a character involved in exposition dialogue that - seemingly for no reason - picks up a paddleball and starts playing with it RIGHT TOWARDS THE SCREEN. This is something they inserted solely for the purpose of reminding the viewer that yes, this is a 3D movie. Nearly every movie shot originally in 3D has these moments. They’re distracting, unnecessary, and take you out of the experience. In the same vein, it makes 3D seem like a gimmick, as though the film cannot stand on its own and needs to throw things at your face to be enjoyable.
Third - most films are not shot in 3D and are retroactively converted to it. What happens when they do this is that the depth of field on the camera is essentially removed. When you take a photo or video, some things are in focus, some things aren’t. This happens naturally inside your own eye as well. When 3D conversion takes place, the film is essentially made into offset “layers”, and every layer is made with full picture clarity because otherwise the 3D part of it wouldn’t work. This results in a flat-looking image that seems it was cut apart and pasted inside a shadow box. This isn’t the case with films shot originally in 3D.
Lastly, I’m a traditionalist. When I go to a movie, I want the movie up there, on a screen, doing what movies do. I don’t want to wear headgear, I don’t want swords poked at my eye. That’s really what everything boils down to. 3D is a gimmick that is meant to get butts in seats in a failing economy. The same thing happened in the 70’s and went away when serious film fans started returning, I think this will go away also. At least I’m hoping.
I’m simultaneously amused and annoyed by these whenever I notice these in films I’m watching in 2D. I mean, for example, Professor Manhattan? Totally a paddleball moment.
Guess I will also throw in my vote to the fact I dislike the “paddleball moments” in 3D movies. Especially watching it in a 2D movie, since it is makes it very distracting. Watching a 3D movie that has a bigillion of these moments in 2D really annoying. Also I am a 20/20 vision person as well.
I really don’t have must against 3D movies, but I prefer them with the settle hints of it’s 3D without going over the top. Although not a movie, the Nintendo 3DS has some really neat uses of it so far, ant gives it enjoyment for the pure fact it also makes the graphics look so much better.
I’ve rarely enjoyed 3D and sometimes hated it. Luckily, the people I generally see movies w/ are happy not to spend the extra money for 3-D. For y’all, though, I recommend Paul try out these 2-D glasses so you can enjoy the swank theater:
And I’m sure someone out there is working on custom prescription 3D glasses, but they’re going to be so expensive that most of us won’t be able to afford them.