3D - actively avoiding it

[Pommygranite]

After seeing quite a few films recently in 3D it seems that it really detracts from the enjoyment, unless the film was specifically produced in 3d to start with (Avatar).

Due to the colour loss with 3D most films seem bland and washed out. In addition the glasses really arent very comfortable.

So now when going to the cinema i'm finding that we actively look for 3d films in good old fashioned 2d.

Are others finding the same?

[elster]

I hate hate hate them!

As a glasses wearer they are a royal pain in the bum, but also I don't actually enjoy watching them.

They are great for a kids gimmick, nothing else.

[Stu R]

Can't stand them, hopefully just a passing fad - I'm far more interested in superHD and the like.

[roryfizz]

I totally agree i found that even with Avatar the 3D version looked very grey and washed out compared to the 2D version. IMHO the 2D version was far superior, 3D is such a gimmick but everybody seems to be jumping onto the bandwagon but for the hassle of wearing glasses i much prefer 2D and im only 19!!!!

[catmartin]

Lots of 3D tech on its way, I'm afraid! 3D tvs out already and the new Nintendo DS is to have a 3D screen too as far as I know! It all just gives me a migraine!

[Don]

If you have Sky HD your box is already capable of delivering a 3D channel. The "preview" is in the list HD channels now...and will be free to Sky World (i.e. everything) customers.

So I have the box, and the package, but not the screen - and not the desire, frankly.

[MrV]

Add another to the not keen on it,it will be here to stay though as it stops the pirating in screen though.

My main moan is the added cost to the seat price ,I took my nipper to see Alice in wonderland and it came in even with a discount of going to the early screening at £19 Ok they charge for the Roy Orbison glasses but they then ask for them back at the end to be recycled instead of letting you keep them and offer a cheaper price the next time you go.

[louiebaby]

I have no interest in 3D. I don't want to sit like a wally in daft glasses in the cinema to have an experience, I want to go and see a good film, cleverly directed and well acted.

Mind you, I still think that CGI rarely adds much to any film.

Perhaps I'm getting old.

[Antony Moxey]

louiebaby said:

I don't want to sit like a wally in daft glasses in the cinema.

What makes you think you're a wally? Everyone else is wearing them, and everyone else is watching the film, not looking at you and laughing.

I can understand people who feel uncomfortable wearing the glasses - some people just aren't used to them - but not those who feel daft wearing them. TBH after a while I didn't even notice I was wearing them when watching Avatar, I was too engrossed in the film.

[Don]

Antony Moxey said:

louiebaby said:

I don't want to sit like a wally in daft glasses in the cinema.

What makes you think you're a wally? Everyone else is wearing them, and everyone else is watching the film, not looking at you and laughing.

I can understand people who feel uncomfortable wearing the glasses - some people just aren't used to them - but not those who feel daft wearing them. TBH after a while I didn't even notice I was wearing them when watching Avatar, I was too engrossed in the film.

One great thing about being middle aged is not giving a st! So I was happy to wear the specs to see Avatar (which I enjoyed). I didn't like wearing them over the top of my exisiting glasses, though, and that would put me off having a system at home.

But I'll go and see the odd 3D film for fun...


...but only the odd one. Mostly I don't care.

[MiniMan64]

If it's properly shot for 3D like Avatar then I think it's great, that really was a properly good looking film.

However I am unimpressed with all these Johnny-come-latelys switching their films into 3D post production, it's just crap.

[chippy17]

MiniMan64 said:

If it's properly shot for 3D like Avatar then I think it's great, that really was a properly good looking film.

However I am unimpressed with all these Johnny-come-latelys switching their films into 3D post production, it's just crap.

IMO I thought even Avatar was lacking, I thought it made the screen too dark and all the 3D bits that were, for example, to the side were blurred.

And as another glasses wearer i had to put contacts in (which I hate) but it would have been very annoying wearing two sets of glasses, as and when they come up with 3D without glasses I'm in...

btw the more I think about Avatar as a film the more I think what a load of rubbish!

[elster]

chippy17 said:

MiniMan64 said:

If it's properly shot for 3D like Avatar then I think it's great, that really was a properly good looking film.

However I am unimpressed with all these Johnny-come-latelys switching their films into 3D post production, it's just crap.

IMO I thought even Avatar was lacking, I thought it made the screen too dark and all the 3D bits that were, for example, to the side were blurred.

And as another glasses wearer i had to put contacts in (which I hate) but it would have been very annoying wearing two sets of glasses, as and when they come up with 3D without glasses I'm in...

btw the more I think about Avatar as a film the more I think what a load of rubbish!

I wasn't impressed. The budget seemed to be spent on technologies and they forgot to hire a script writer.

[MiniMan64]

chippy17 said:

MiniMan64 said:

If it's properly shot for 3D like Avatar then I think it's great, that really was a properly good looking film.

However I am unimpressed with all these Johnny-come-latelys switching their films into 3D post production, it's just crap.

IMO I thought even Avatar was lacking, I thought it made the screen too dark and all the 3D bits that were, for example, to the side were blurred.

And as another glasses wearer i had to put contacts in (which I hate) but it would have been very annoying wearing two sets of glasses, as and when they come up with 3D without glasses I'm in...

btw the more I think about Avatar as a film the more I think what a load of rubbish!

I did say I thought it was a good looking film not a good film

[MentalSarcasm]

First time I watched a 3D film with the 3D glasses over my normal glasses (short sighted and with an astigmatism in one eye, I'm all about bad eyesight here XD) I ended up with a horrendous headache within 5 minutes of the film starting. In the end I had to take off my normal glasses for most of the film, which meant I got to watch it in slightly blurry 3D, and only put them back on once most of the headache had worn off.

Went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D and had my normal glasses off during the adverts (yes they had 3D adverts FFS) and put them on once the film started. Still ended up with a headache but it wasn't as bad and took longer to develop.

Would love to be able to avoid 3D entirely but my family always insists that they want to watch the film in 3D so it's a case of put up with it or miss the film entirely.

[SJobson]

Antony Moxey said:

louiebaby said:

I don't want to sit like a wally in daft glasses in the cinema.

What makes you think you're a wally? Everyone else is wearing them, and everyone else is watching the film, not looking at you and laughing.

Somebody must be laughing.

[darth_pies]

Pommygranite said:

After seeing quite a few films recently in 3D it seems that it really detracts from the enjoyment, unless the film was specifically produced in 3d to start with (Avatar).

Interesting article here about a company that makes 2D films into 3D and what's involved in the
process. Apparently $80k-$100k per minute if you want it to look good!
http://3dcinecast.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-three-on...

Clash of the Titans was 2D and rushed into 3D in <3months which is why it looks poor.

louiebaby said:

I don't want to sit like a wally in daft glasses in the cinema to have an experience

If you sat opposite someone and watched them gawping at a 2 hour 2D movie you'd probably think they looked like a 'wally' anyway. Who are these people who are watching you watch a film?!?