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.
Really. Do network execs really think everyone is 8 years old and this is 1962? Get over the 3D schtick already. What's next? Smellovision?
THIS. They have tried to bring 3D back twice in my lifetime for (I'm 38) and it has failed both times. I realize the technology is much better these days but the fact is that most people don't want to wear those stupid "glasses". Especially if you require regular eyeglasses to see.
I remember the horror trilogy of 3D movies that were the 3rd in the series:
I've seen several 3D family movies the past few months, all were very enjoyable with the 3D experience.
One theater in my area did not charge extra for the glasses.
Another, larger chain theater, does charge extra. Then they take the glasses back after the show.
What kind of experiences have other's have?
Is it normal to charge extra for a 3D movie? Should they?
I guess it is normal to charge extra for a 3D movie because I think it costs more to actually make and show the movie.
If they charge extra for the movie, they shouldn't be charging for the glasses but I don't know who is picking up the costs of those.
I don't want to wear something that someone else had in their hair. What if they have lice???!!! If they charge me for the glasses, I am keeping them!!
Hopefully this trend won't carry on for anything other than family films.
Gosh I really hope not. I have seen a couple of movies recently with 3D and it was just as awful as in the 70s with movies like "Jaws". I see it as yet another gimmick which adds nothing to the film. In fact it will no doubt detract from any script as the story will become secondary to the technical stuff ( as it has already with CGEs) .
Films are about telling a story , why ruin it with 3D.
I've seen several 3D family movies the past few months, all were very enjoyable with the 3D experience.
One theater in my area did not charge extra for the glasses.
Another, larger chain theater, does charge extra. Then they take the glasses back after the show.
What kind of experiences have other's have?
Is it normal to charge extra for a 3D movie? Should they?
We got charged extra, and I was *not* happy about it, nor was I thrilled with the 3D.They said it was "something to do with Pixar." And yeah, they asked for the glasses afterwards.
I can't see 3D lasting in film. Like Rita said, it's hard to wear them over regular glasses and I honestly can't see people wanting to wear glasses every time they watch a movie, at the theater or at home. What happens when you go to a movie spur-of-the-moment and forget your glasses? Or if you go to a friend's house who plans on watching a movie and you don't have your glasses with you? What if they break and you need to buy new ones? How expensive will they be to replace? What about people who are blind in one eye and can't experience 3D? No more movies for them?
3D is a cool idea, and I'm stoked on Avatar being in 3D because I have a strong faith James Cameron can do something amazing with it, but I know, for me at least, I don't want to wear 3D glasses every time I watch a movie from now on. And I saw Up in 3D and it took at least a half hour for my eyes to adjust and left me with a headache afterwards.
Reviving the thread, as someone who has done a lot of 3D photography and written articles on the subject for professionals. The real issue is not the 3-D as much as it is the way the directors and cameramen are handling it. They continually try to use the language of flat film and tv, like tight close-ups, pans, and other cliches like the rotating camera. To this they sprinkle a few "stick-it-in-your eye" violations of the frame, and then wonder why things don't work (except for a few kids).
I have a 3-D camcorder system and have taken enough 3-D footage to know that a few things are important for 3-D motion pictures and tv. Even the rules for 3-D still photography have to be modified.
First, the camera works best from a FIXED position, with people and objects moving naturally within the field of view. People have difficulty re-orienting themselves when their own bodies aren't the cause of the change of view and perspective.
Second, for the optimal viewing experience, the angles need to be almost exactly the same as what you would experience in real life. When you look at my footage, on my 52" screen with the couch placed in exactly the right position, it looks like the frame around the tv screen is merely the frame around a window, and what it on the other side of that window just looks normal, like you were actually at the location. This is orthoscopic 3-D presentation. Almost anyone who experiences it understands that it is entirely different than schlock schtick, and has real value.
The chances of regular movies and tv capturing this using existing equipment is almost nil. People have different sized screens, different viewing preferences and seating locations, etc.. Even the distance between the eyes can be different, making someone with close-set eyes have eyestrain, where someone with wideset eyes might see the scene as distorted or miniaturized.
Those stupid glasses don't work for me. I have very good vision in one eye, and really, REALLY poor vision in the air. To compensate, my brain gets most visual information out of the good eye.
So those glasses just make the picture look like an oddly-colored blur. And they give me a headache.
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.