Heh, unfortunate for the people who payed thousands for a 3D tv.

I don't hate 3D in concept, but I don't like 3D's current reality. It's not that impressive yet + I have to wear these stupid glasses (and if you wear glasses for eyesight, it's a pain in the butt if you don't feel like wearing your contact lenses). Most places where I live will have the 'big name' 3D movies in 2D as well, so I still have a choice, but I guess in smaller theaters they may not do this.

It's a fad because it's something different - unless they up the tech dramatically again very soon - I think it'll die down again, like it did with those stupid red/green glasses times ..until that next major 3D tech improvement does occur, anyway.
And I definitely will NOT be buying a 3D television.

There is a chance that 3D can complement a great film/TV show, just as CGI before it. The problem: relatively incompetant directors (and/or executive meddling) seem to think that something like 3D can be used as a replacement to good storytelling because, apparently, veiwers are morons.

$10-$12 is pretty cheap compared to the $17 I think we paid to watch Avatar in 3D

I dunno...when I saw Avatar, the first 1/2 hour was like "This new-fangled 3D is sorta interesting." But after that my eyes became used to the notion and I hardly noticed it was there. I know they tried to be a little subtle with it in Avatar (vs. lots of in-your-face pie throwing) but still, I didn't feel like it really enhanced the visuals that much. I noticed it a lot more in reverse ... watching it in 2D and seeing every spot where they'd shot the scene w/3D in mind. Distracting because it was so obvious.

Now virtual reality (a holodeck, say) is something I could really get into ... but trying to get 3D to lift off on a flat 2D screen still doesn't make me sit up and notice. Just my opinion tho...or maybe my eyes.

At least the new Batman movie will not be in 3D. So at least there is on movie to look forward to that I don't have to worry about being in 3D.

I am so disapointed that The Hobbit will be in 3D ggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

It wouldn't be so bad, but most of the time its just put in for the sake of 3d, it doesn't add or improve anything

Only movie I saw in 3D was Tron, and I'm over with 3D...


:P

I guess by not assaulting my senses with loud music and tonnes of TV makes me think differently on this. There is no "Forcing" of a change into 3D being a standard, it's an option, which is kind of making this pointless. I could understand this, if you couldn't buy a TV that wasn't 3D, or the only movies released are in 3D, but that's not the case. Every theater i'v been to offers both 3D and regular viewings. And most high-end TV's are soley 3D, but come with 3D capabilities.

But hey, I grew up with watching 3rd Rock from the Sun in 3D was cool.
I find the idea of this kind of thing interesting. I can watch stuff in 3D for extended (4-5 hours) of time without getting a headache or any side effects. I'm rather excited to see the advancements that come for gaming to be honest. The 3DS is already taking the first huge step, but other games already incorperate 3D into their games, if you decide to use the setting. I just hope smoking doesn't kil me in the next 10 years ,so I can see exactly what comes of it. I think it could change a tonne of the gaming market.

hurray for being the only person in this thread not bashing 3D!

every ten years they try this 3D crap and it always fails and always will. first off they are charging $12 bucks a movie for the 3D experience where i live. no one that i know thought that the movie was worth that price 3D or not........only people that actually thought avatar was the greatest movie ever (those of questionable intelligence) thought that the 3D was worth the extra money. it wont work in movies cause so far the only movie that used it effectively was prohibitively expensive and took forever to film and no one likes to wear those stupid glasses.

as for television i can guarentee you that the commercials with the family all sitting around in the living room wearing those stupid glasses and watching sonys 3D TVs are going to rank up their with the "mom, do you ever get that not so fresh feeling" commercials from vasengil

Your opinion to compare people liking avatar to those liking 3D are pretty obscure, and a pretty baseless conjecture. I thought avatar was a good "rot your brain" film, and worth the $15 me and my girlfriend paid to go see it. I also think 3D has the potential for future designs, however a subjective opinion where you are making baseless conjectures makes no sense. :whistling:

Like I said earlier, I don't really care one way or another. Honestly, the complaining annoys me more.

you........must be Captian Obvious...........this is a thread about peoples opinions on 3D. shall i mail you a box of cluuuuuuuuuuuuues. *said in lewis blacks voice*

and my opinion is backed by a long history of 3D in movies being tried and tried and tried again. until they get rid of the stupid glasses it will never catch on in movies. the only area i see it working is in video games where you can wear your glasses in front of your computer or TV but if you get sick of them just take them off and switch the game to 2D mode.

oh and by the way.................AVATAR svckED! titanic was a much better movie. and terminator was 100 times better. cameron is losing his touch just like george lucas.

Since the avatar was based on about half a dozen movies, if not more, story wise, you just said they essentially all svck. And I didn't say opinions were wrong. But if you're going to have an opinion outside of" THIS svckS", you might want to do some research into the matter before you start blindly slandering something.

And hope you realize, Cameron is redoing Titanic in 3D, hope he ruins that movie to.

And personally, I wasn't a huge fan of avatar, but i'm not a cheapskate who is to poor to afford $15.00 for entertainment.

If you prefer to carry this on, PM me, so slander can come forth full throttle, as it is against the forum rules.

Kudo's!

(And if 3D was failing, it wouldn't have such a huge standpoint in multiple forms. Soo. Woo?)

Tron: Legacy was able to integrate it in a way that impressed me. No random [censored] popping out of the screen at you. Instead, there was an actual sense of depth to every scene; it was a little bit closer to being there.

I just wish we could do without the stupid goggles.

Well this is not true. Unless you are in a very large city with a "large enough" poplulation, your only option is to watch it in 3D now. While where i live, they use to give you the option, 3D or non 3D, when I went to see Tron, I only had one option. It was in 3D only, so sadly, no, you don't have an option. Well I guess you do. It's either see it in 3D or not see the movie at all.

My friend lives in a town with just under 3,000 people in it, and her small theater offers both. I'v never heard of anywhere only offering one type of movie. And you can't blame that on 3D, rather than the theater you're near only offering it.

i hope you are being sarcastic about titanic in 3D..........neither of those actors look like they did back then and im not sure its the kind of movie that you can just remake with different actors successfully. i was forced to watch titanic on a date and yet i still think it was a better movie than avatar which is just ............ugh.

im not sure how a bad movies based on other movies automatically makes the other movies bad........that just doesnt make any sense. thats like saying empire strikes back was bad because 2 of the last 3 star wars movies were bad.

i cant link to it since it contains some swears but if you search for "redlettermedia avatar review" you will get a guy that pretty much sums up my feelings about the movie although he doesnt touch on some of the more blatant military related blunders that movie made like spears going through canopies (todays apaches have bullet proof canopies and this takes place in the future) or the fact that the locations they attacked were well within range of todays artillery and once again this in is in the future when supposedly the military is more advanced. and WTF........they had no orbital weapons of any kind. not to mention that the main character never even tells the niaves......i mean the na'vi about his mission or why the humans want the tree......he just completely forgets about it until its too late. these arent minor plot holes they are huge mistakes for a movies that costs this much. the only good part about the movie was the seargent guy. he was hilarious.


not wanting to pay 3 bucks extra so that i have to wear glasses for 3 hours and if i take them off the whole screen goes blurry.............i woudlnt call that being a cheapskate......i just dont want to wear glasses for 3 hours.

OH I do blame it on 3D. It is pure and simple greed.

Oh well, I will just wait an extra 3-6 months till it comes on DVD.

So I don't make a new thread, how come we need those stupid glasses? I mean when they make those 3D TVs couldn't they just make the screen with what they make the glasses from? Come on $250 for a pair of glasses? I don't even pay that much for the glasses I need to see with. Greed, plain and simple greed.

Oh well, I can't wait till the Fad is finished.

I thought the Titanic in 3D was a joke, but now, I am not so sure. I hope it is though.

ah......i found it. this is how i want my 3D gaming to be like. its an old video but i hope they do this some day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

I love 3D. It makes telling which movie is better to watch easier... by marking and singling out the bad ones with a 3D label.

Anyway, I don't care much for it. It used to be so much cooler when it was exclusive to the IMAX and I only watched something in it on a huge screen once a year. In some visually stunning films, such as Avatar, I still think it's worth it, but most movies just have it as a type of tacked-on feature and I don't care for that. I only like it when the visuals were designed to go with the 3D, otherwise it feels like a cheap gimmick meant to attract sales. It loses it's "wow" factor when it's become as common as it now is, in my opinion.