[Closed] 3d Cinema. Is it just me?

I've only seen a few but they're variable... Star Trek: Into Darkness in full on retina-burning Imax 3D was fantastic, really brought the celluloid alive. Dredd, you could see they weren't that into the 3D, the scenes where it was done well (slomo) were superb but the rest were a bit, well, flat. I get the feeling it's hard to do well.

Been to a couple of 3D viewings and am generally not impressed & don't notice it. Off to see Gravity on Thursday to give 3D another go. If piss poor I'll save my money in future and not bother.

I agree completely. I have seen a few 3D films and find the whole thing a bit pointless. Only about 2/3% of the film seems to use actual 3D footage which means its really obvious and feels out of place.

My biggest issue is with the quality of it. I love watching things in HD due to crisp picture. 3D elements of films are grainy and fuzzy (for me anyway..?)

We dont watch 3d films now, we go for the better / cheaper 2d version.

I find the 3D effect just doesn't work for me - in the worst cases it gives me a splitting headache.

I enjoyed Avatar in 3D but for everything else I've seen in 3D it seemed more distracting than anything. Also have a 3D TV at home and have tried 3D gaming on the PS3 which was cool for 5 minutes and then created a massive headache. Games tried were Wipeout and Batman.

If its IMAX then 3D is generally pretty awesome.

IMAX gives a much better depth of field so it genuinely looks like natural 3D. Image quality from the IMAX projectors tends to be spot on too.

Normal cinema 3D is bit more meh, I can take it or leave it - I'd rather watch a 3D Blu-Ray in the comfort of my living room

Funny, I saw it at the imax in 3d last night and thought it was the first film in 3d I'd seen were it didn't come across as a gimmick. I thought being able to see the curvature of [s]crass comment[/s] the earth and having the deep background of space actually added to the feel of the film.

Usually I'd agree with you, I prefer watching a film normally, my mind can generally work out if something is small or far away. However, in this case I think it is worth seeing in 3D. Plus, whatever you think of the oscars, this is going to win at least three.

aye, my partners not the keen due to side effect like Ben's and though we saw Avatar (oh the shame) in 3D, we weren't exactly blown away by the experience.
TBH the local Imax which has lost it 'imax' status, and is now just a "giant screen" is a load more enjoyable (and scary for me at least, in the case Batman jumping off high rise buildings).

I have only seen animated 3D movies (I have kids and don't get to cinema unless it is with them) and find the 3D really good.

In fact I have found myself ducking when something comes towards me on more than 1 occasion 😀

My 3d viewing experience is always a 3 stage process

1)" this looks weird, the 3d effect looks fake and distracting"

2)" oh, I'm getting used to it now, mmmm 3d. "

3) forget the film is in 3d

I don't really like it - 3d films all look dark and out of focus to me, would much rather watch a well shot and projected 2d film

I think it's rubbish. Until they develop something that works without wearing glasses it's never going to work for me.
Can't imagine watching sport on it on TV either. Do people convince themselves its good just because they've spent money on the 3D TV and Sky subscription? From what I've seen in shop demos any fast action is horribly blurred.

I have only seen animated 3D movies (I have kids and don't get to cinema unless it is with them) and find the 3D really good.

Ditto. I'd seen some shop demo's which were always awful, but at home, with the TV setup properly, I think for animated films, it's great.

These films are designed to make sense w/3D, so when you watch in 2D I always think I'm not seeing the film as intended.

Summed it up grievoustim, that's my though process exactly! Put on tin foil hat and hides in corner.

When has anyone ever watched a 2D film and said afterwards

It was great, but I wish some things had popped out of the screen at me, it just seemed a bit, 'flat'?

?

It'd be handy for sport imo, especially football when there are high balls. However HD is better still for sport because you can see who the players are much better. I think you lose half the resolution if you watch 3D.

Too many films made to 'use 3D' for effect and it is just fluff that gets in the way of having to have a decent story line.

And, more importantly, it gets in the way of them actually shooting in very high definition and with higher frame rates, which would be a lot better imho. The depth of field on a high definition 2D film is good enough to provide your brain with all the information it needs to reconstruct the scene.

The only film I can recall that I really thought worked well in 3D was Hugo. All set in a train station with pretty much no action at all apart from one chase scene. Fantastic film actually made better by being in 3D.

The only 3d movies I've seen so far is the Hobbit. I found the 3d distracting and pointless. The screen seemed fuzzy except the prime focus of an give shot- so backgrounds including reacting minor characters etc, and fast panning shots were really blurred - it all really got on my breasts. Not helped by the film being pretty meh anyway

I will give it another go with gravity given the hype, but low expectations.

Really don't like 3D
I can't see past the cynical marketing reasons for it's existence.

i.e.
1) Keeping people going to the cinema when attendance is falling
2) Selling more TVs once everyone was happy with their thin/flat/HD one

It's existence usually pulls me out of a film, rather than pulling me in.

Avatar used it well create huge depth to the jungle etc

Everything else just seems like a gimmic that makes no difference to the film

3D movies I don't get, as above it gets muddled etc.

Rides with 3D screens at themeparks like Disney/Universal etc I can appreciate... the new Transformers ride at Universal Studio's is much awesomeness.

I'm glad to see it is not just me.

Mrs JP thinks I am just being grumpy.

Generally they are too dark and out of focus. The 3D bits are annoyingly put there just because they look good coming out of the screen and they give me a bad head.

I much prefer a big screen in 2D

only one Ive seen is Life of Pi, supposedly a good example. I found it distracting, irritating and gimmicky. I also found that as you focus on the 'nearest' objects you miss the background, totally wasting any efforts by the cinematographer to set anotherwise stunning scene.

i.e.
1) Keeping people going to the cinema when attendance is falling
2) Selling more TVs once everyone was happy with their thin/flat/HD one

Mark Kermode, famous 3D hater, would add (and put at top of list)

3) maintain profits by being impossible to pirate.
Interestingly he did say it worked for Gravity, I am currently doing my best to avoid the trailers and not have it spoiled.

Mark Kermode, famous 3D hater, would add (and put at top of list)

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/posts/An-Announcement ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/posts/An-Announcement[/url]

you quoted the wrong part of my post, I did also write

Interestingly he did say it worked for Gravity

🙂

He'd previously said it worked for Hugo, which Mark (STW not Kermode) mentioned above.

Can't even read, my mistake

Mr Woppit - Member

Or am I just to old and set in my habits to appreciate it?

I think you may well be just too old and set in your habits, Woppit. In fact, you may be one of the most ornery people I have ever encountered online. 😉

That said, you are definitely right on this one.

Thanks for the compliment.

Until they develop something that works without wearing glasses it's never going to work for me

done :

Doesn't work for me. I think I know why, for me at least In real life you focus on something and the background is blurred cause you're not focusing on it. With a 3d film if you look to the background it's blurred and doesn't come into focus, so you loose the realism. Because of this I preferred the 2d version of Avatar (though it's crap film anyway) as there is a lot more detail as the background is not blurred, especially in the opening sequences where they're all floating about after coming out if cryo-sleep. For 3d to really work you need a system where the audience can all focus on different parts of the screen simultaneously. At least on a 2d film everything is in focus so you see in focus what you're looking at even though you don't get the depth perception.

Great effects in Gravity, really enjoyed watching. But the plot was very flat.

Great films leave you thinking about what happened for days, weeks or years afterwards. This one just left me admiring the technology that went into it.

Has there been a porn film yet set in 36DD? If not then I am going to make it.

Has there been a porn film yet set in 36DD

Not quite...

My take on 3d is it can work, I really liked Up & Toy Story 3, where it felt they used the effect to give real depth to the films, almost like watching a live theatre show with the most amazing effects ever.

Where I think it tends to fail is on depth of field - ie the filmakers want to actors faces to be in focus when they're pointing guns out of the screen so the guns are out of focus, however cos Matt Damon is waving a gun in my face, my eyes are trying to focus on that & not his face...

That eyelid film is absolutely fantastic.