Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to agree with this 100%. It is a novelty. It costs more money so we buy into it. Worst of all, we buy into it along with IMAX when 99% of major movies shown on IMAX never ever had an IMAX camera close to the production. I loved when 3D was introduced at first - mainly with cartoons. I remember seeing Up, and the Nightmare before Christmas and thinking that it was a pretty neat concept. But, when it was brought to live action, my fascination with it stopped. It didn't add any value at all.
I remember seeing Alice in Wonderland the first time in 3D, it was horrible...it was hard to watch because we weren't able to get seats further back in the theatre. I saw it in the regular format and it was a lot better. I know with 3D televisions that there is a lot of appeal for this sort of thing, but I have a feeling that the 3D televisions will end up being like Laserdisc...a must have for people with disposable income but then they will be long forgotten.
I only see cartoons in 3D (if I have to) because I would rather have my entire focus on the actual movie and not the effects. JMHO. The substance with movies has drastically decreased with the introduction to 3D - it isn't so much about the stories now but rather if you feel like something is falling into your lap.
I wrote an extended response to this, but then realized I was just wasting my time. Ebert is a blithering idiot who claimed that the 3D of the 1950s was all anaglyph, even though there is ample evidence to the contrary. He hates 3D and always has.
His "expert witness" is primarily a sound engineer and editor. I suppose, if Ansel Adams was still alive, I would be equally correct in having Adams critique Munch's soundtracks and declare that "Sound is dead!"
I'll save the technical, and the easy destruction of the arguments put forth for those who care. All of it, with one minor exception, can be blown out of the water.
Anyone who claims that 3D is never going to succeed is very shortsighted.
3D is the future; within 10 years it will be a standard feature on new televisions in the U.S. They're already out there--go to your local electronics box store and check out a floor model. You'll be spoiled for life. When you take of those glasses and return to viewong normal LCD or LED tv's, the picture appears lifeless and dull by comparison.
As far as movies, within 10 years you won't have to go to iMax for 3D; it will be standard in any local GooglePlex Theater. iMax'x by then will either be obsolete (my guess) or will feature an even better pic, like some sort of hologram 4D picture. (Which, btw, is gonna be the future for movies and TV, probably in about 20 years. You'll be able to actually "enter" the movie or even sporting event you're watching and view it as if you were in the middle of the action.)
The people who claim 3D has no future are the same types who claimed that radio was never going to catch on. Or like those IBM execs who wondered why the hell anyone would want a computer in their home when Bill Gates approached them for financial backing! LOL.
People don't want to wear the glasses either at home or in the theater. They should do something like jab a needle into your eye and inject some 3D stuff in there so that you don't need the glasses and can always see in 3D......oh, never mind.
I saw Alice in Wonderland in Imax 3D and it was wonderful because I felt like I was in the middle of an adventure. I don't think I'd like it for everything but it was wonderful for that movie. My husband and daughter enjoyed it, too.
On another note, last month my friend bought a SONY 3D television and it went kaput in a few weeks. He's not happy.
I'm fascinated by Nintendo's 3DS that is coming out. You don't have to wear the glasses to view 3D.
Anyone who claims that 3D is never going to succeed is very shortsighted.
3D is the future; within 10 years it will be a standard feature on new televisions in the U.S. They're already out there--go to your local electronics box store and check out a floor model. You'll be spoiled for life. When you take of those glasses and return to viewong normal LCD or LED tv's, the picture appears lifeless and dull by comparison.
As far as movies, within 10 years you won't have to go to iMax for 3D; it will be standard in any local GooglePlex Theater. iMax'x by then will either be obsolete (my guess) or will feature an even better pic, like some sort of hologram 4D picture. (Which, btw, is gonna be the future for movies and TV, probably in about 20 years. You'll be able to actually "enter" the movie or even sporting event you're watching and view it as if you were in the middle of the action.)
The people who claim 3D has no future are the same types who claimed that radio was never going to catch on. Or like those IBM execs who wondered why the hell anyone would want a computer in their home when Bill Gates approached them for financial backing! LOL.
meh, I kind of doubt it, at least in that time frame. the fact that Blu-ray has yet to fully take off, despite the length of time it's been out suggests that people are not jumping into all of this new, high depth, technology just yet. the high price tag of 3D will also keep many people away and I don't see the prices dropping in the same way prices dropped for blu-ray players and HDTVs. on top of that, 3-D movies are expensive to make and many prominent film makers aren't buying the hype. and let's fact it, the vast majority of movies made has no real need for 3-D anyways. it doesn't add anything to most movies like a rom-com or comedy. 3D is NOTHING like radio, or even the computer analogy. this technology isn't really needed, IMO, and doesn't enhance a plot one bit
People don't want to wear the glasses either at home or in the theater. They should do something like jab a needle into your eye and inject some 3D stuff in there so that you don't need the glasses and can always see in 3D......oh, never mind.
I saw Alice in Wonderland in Imax 3D and it was wonderful because I felt like I was in the middle of an adventure. I don't think I'd like it for everything but it was wonderful for that movie. My husband and daughter enjoyed it, too.
On another note, last month my friend bought a SONY 3D television and it went kaput in a few weeks. He's not happy.
I'm fascinated by Nintendo's 3DS that is coming out. You don't have to wear the glasses to view 3D.
problem w/ the Nitendo 3DS is, not sure you'd want you're daughter to use it in 3D mode if she's under 6 years old. apparently, eyeball shrinkage may become an issue:
the technology isn't there yet at all in terms of no-glass 3-D
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
