5 ms·
Movies in 3D might not be accessible to everyone, but that doesn't mean it should be accessible noone. I agree to your general point, but not this specific one.
by undreren 8y ago
Movies in 3D might not be accessible to everyone, but that doesn't mean it should be accessible noone. I agree to your general point, but not this specific one.
- crocal 8y agoI understand what you mean. I should have explained that my temper flares when 3D is the only option offered, or when the 2D option is given at impossible hours.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- undreren 8y agoAs I commented on the other reply, I wasn't aware that this was a problem. Personally, I really dislike 3D movies and wouldn't go to one unless invited.
- ahje 8y agoWhile you're absolutely right in a general sense, the local theatres here (and most likely elsewhere too) simply don't license the 2D-version of some movies, thus preventing myself and other people who only see in 2D for whatever reason from watching those movies.
- undreren 8y agoThat was not a problem, I was aware of. That seems pretty annoying.
- jasonlotito 8y agoI've honestly never seen that. I've always seen options for both. Where do you live where the only theaters show 3D only?
- BurritoAlPastor 8y agoThat's actually quite unusual. As of last year, 3D tickets accounted for less than a third of the tickets sold for 3D movies: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/is-golden-age-3d-officially-1025843 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/is-golden-ag... (They cite about one-third 3D, but they're counting box gross, and 3D tickets are usually about... +20% price?) Speaking anecdotally from when I worked in a theater, somewhere around one in five people either can't watch 3D movies (motion sickness or similar) or simply don't benefit (no depth perception). Parties of four or more would almost always go to a 2D showing, because of the likelihood that somebody would veto 3D.