6 ms·

Surely 3d only makes any sense if you can move around the environment - a holo-deck. 3d movies, where we're all sat down in a fixed chair makes absolutely no s

by axod 16y ago

Surely 3d only makes any sense if you can move around the environment - a holo-deck. 3d movies, where we're all sat down in a fixed chair makes absolutely no sense. It's a gimmick that adds nothing - apart from headaches, crappy dark image and occasional crude "THIS IS 3D" in your face 'effects'. Sitting in a chair looking at a screen we already see 3D. We have all the cues necessary for our brains to reconstruct the scene. Didn't work in the 50s, didn't work in the 80s, didn't work in 2010s. I guess every generation has some people who think it's a great idea to try it again.

cryptoz 16y ago
> didn't work in 2010s Hah! You wish. For example, Avatar made more than $2,000,000,000. That's $2 billion. And a huge part of the Avatar revenue comes from its 3D sales. Maybe it didn't work for you, but it sure worked for most people who went to see it.
- Splines 16y ago
  But given a choice, would moviegoers pick the 2D version over the 3D version? In a universe where Avatar 3D never existed, would the 2D version alone have sold as much? Remember, they would have also been able to deliver the movie earlier (I don't know how much, but making a 3D movie can't be free - at least not yet). I'm reasonably certain that there are only a very small number of people who saw Avatar for the sole reason of it being 3D (in other words, if the 2D version was the only option, they would have skipped it).
  - dagw 16y ago
    I don't know anybody who went to see Avatar because they thought it would be a good movie. I also don't know anybody who went to see the 2D version, despite it playing at the same time and a few bucks cheaper. Everybody went because they wanted to see what could be done with the cutting edge in CGI technology plus insane amounts of money and to see what this 3D cinema thing was all about. I have as little evidence as you do, but I imagine that skipping the 3D version wouldn't have gotten the film anywhere near as much hype (and thus money).
    - batasrki 16y ago
      This is certainly the reason I went to see it. However, not only was I underwhelmed by the regurgitation of the Pocahontas story, I was extremely underwhelmed by the 3D. The only effect that made me think the film was "realistic" was the flies that kept flying around when they were in the forrest. Avatar did exactly the opposite of what intended to do and that is, it turned me off of 3D movies not on to them. Sure, it made the money it did, but at least for me, it didn't do anything to advance the technology nor promote it.
      - dagw 16y ago
        Yea, that was the exact same effect Avatar had on me. I'm really glad I saw it 3D and now feel no desire to see another movie in 3D for at least a couple years (when hopefully some new neat tech has come along which I'll feel compelled to check out).
        btilly 16y ago
        That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Go to a real IMAX theater and watch a real IMAX movie. They tend to be science documentaries, like Hubble 3D. Compared to that, Avatar just seemed fuzzy and out of focus to me.
    - kscaldef 16y ago
      I chose the 2D version. My girlfriend and I will pick the 2D version of any movie over the 3D, and won't go to see movies that are only showing in 3D at all. Even if they were the same price, the illusion does not work well for us and makes the experience less enjoyable.
      - mrtron 16y ago
        Colorblind? A good friend can't enjoy 3D movies because for that reason.
        kscaldef 16y ago
  - mason55 16y ago
    I definitely saw Avatar a second time only because of the 3D. Additionally, last weekend I wanted to see a movie in the theaters and picked Tron: Resurrection or whatever it's called solely because of the 3D.
- kordless 16y ago
  Avatar was a good enough movie by itself to win awards and make money. It probably got a small kick from being 3D, but I disagree it was a huge part. FWIW, I saw it in 2D first, loved it, then later saw it in 3D and hated every minute watching it. It was dark and gave me a HUGE headache.
  - mrtron 16y ago
    I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D. I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal to a broad audience.
    - jokermatt999 16y ago
      It wasn't the kind of "great movie" that critics and peers will recommend years down the line as essential viewing or thought provoking, but it was the kind of "great movie" that people would recommend to their friends for an entertaining "going to the movies with popcorn and friends" experience. The plot was thin, but the visuals and action were great entertainment, as shown by the revenue.
    - roc 16y ago
      You don't get hundreds of millions of people interested in anything unless you design it to appeal to a broad audience. If it was 2D it would have likely sold the same number of tickets, just at a lower per-ticket price. Consider that it's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are commensurate with its box-office gross, with no 3D on offer.
      - mrtron 16y ago
        I disagree. If it hadn't been built for 3D with amazing effects it would not have had the hype, people going to watch the movie several times, etc that really pushed it to the next level. You are underestimating the marketing value of the 3D effects. Of course the DVD sales will be great, because it has been on everyones radar for the last year+. 3D effects were a big part of that.
- axod 16y ago
  pretty sure there was 1 success in 50s and 80s as well.
- baq 16y ago
  it made so much because it used a new technology that people were curious about - and it used it well enough. that's not going to happen again.
gnaffle 16y ago
Which is more likely, that 3D makes no sense to most people, or that you're one of the few which has problems watching 3D movies? I do know a few friends which thought Avatar 3D was "nothing special", but most of us thought it was great in 3D, easily worth the reduced light. I agree that a lot of bad 3D movies are put out there now, and I think the current hype will fade. But I have no doubt that the technology has advanced far enough that 3D is here to stay this time.
narag 16y ago
I happen to dislike the idea of most films and (horror!) tv and games using 3D, and at the same time I enjoyed 3D Avatar like a child. About the "small" thing, I sat at the 4th row (?) and the image was fine.

by axod 16y ago

cryptoz 16y ago

> didn't work in 2010s Hah! You wish. For example, Avatar made more than $2,000,000,000. That's $2 billion. And a huge part of the Avatar revenue comes from its 3D sales. Maybe it didn't work for you, but it sure worked for most people who went to see it.

Splines 16y ago
But given a choice, would moviegoers pick the 2D version over the 3D version? In a universe where Avatar 3D never existed, would the 2D version alone have sold as much? Remember, they would have also been able to deliver the movie earlier (I don't know how much, but making a 3D movie can't be free - at least not yet). I'm reasonably certain that there are only a very small number of people who saw Avatar for the sole reason of it being 3D (in other words, if the 2D version was the only option, they would have skipped it).
- dagw 16y ago
  I don't know anybody who went to see Avatar because they thought it would be a good movie. I also don't know anybody who went to see the 2D version, despite it playing at the same time and a few bucks cheaper. Everybody went because they wanted to see what could be done with the cutting edge in CGI technology plus insane amounts of money and to see what this 3D cinema thing was all about. I have as little evidence as you do, but I imagine that skipping the 3D version wouldn't have gotten the film anywhere near as much hype (and thus money).
  - batasrki 16y ago
    This is certainly the reason I went to see it. However, not only was I underwhelmed by the regurgitation of the Pocahontas story, I was extremely underwhelmed by the 3D. The only effect that made me think the film was "realistic" was the flies that kept flying around when they were in the forrest. Avatar did exactly the opposite of what intended to do and that is, it turned me off of 3D movies not on to them. Sure, it made the money it did, but at least for me, it didn't do anything to advance the technology nor promote it.
    - dagw 16y ago
      Yea, that was the exact same effect Avatar had on me. I'm really glad I saw it 3D and now feel no desire to see another movie in 3D for at least a couple years (when hopefully some new neat tech has come along which I'll feel compelled to check out).
      - btilly 16y ago
        That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Go to a real IMAX theater and watch a real IMAX movie. They tend to be science documentaries, like Hubble 3D. Compared to that, Avatar just seemed fuzzy and out of focus to me.
  - kscaldef 16y ago
    I chose the 2D version. My girlfriend and I will pick the 2D version of any movie over the 3D, and won't go to see movies that are only showing in 3D at all. Even if they were the same price, the illusion does not work well for us and makes the experience less enjoyable.
    - mrtron 16y ago
      Colorblind? A good friend can't enjoy 3D movies because for that reason.
      - kscaldef 16y ago
- mason55 16y ago
  I definitely saw Avatar a second time only because of the 3D. Additionally, last weekend I wanted to see a movie in the theaters and picked Tron: Resurrection or whatever it's called solely because of the 3D.
kordless 16y ago
Avatar was a good enough movie by itself to win awards and make money. It probably got a small kick from being 3D, but I disagree it was a huge part. FWIW, I saw it in 2D first, loved it, then later saw it in 3D and hated every minute watching it. It was dark and gave me a HUGE headache.
- mrtron 16y ago
  I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D. I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal to a broad audience.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    It wasn't the kind of "great movie" that critics and peers will recommend years down the line as essential viewing or thought provoking, but it was the kind of "great movie" that people would recommend to their friends for an entertaining "going to the movies with popcorn and friends" experience. The plot was thin, but the visuals and action were great entertainment, as shown by the revenue.
  - roc 16y ago
    You don't get hundreds of millions of people interested in anything unless you design it to appeal to a broad audience. If it was 2D it would have likely sold the same number of tickets, just at a lower per-ticket price. Consider that it's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are commensurate with its box-office gross, with no 3D on offer.
    - mrtron 16y ago
      I disagree. If it hadn't been built for 3D with amazing effects it would not have had the hype, people going to watch the movie several times, etc that really pushed it to the next level. You are underestimating the marketing value of the 3D effects. Of course the DVD sales will be great, because it has been on everyones radar for the last year+. 3D effects were a big part of that.
axod 16y ago
pretty sure there was 1 success in 50s and 80s as well.
baq 16y ago
it made so much because it used a new technology that people were curious about - and it used it well enough. that's not going to happen again.

gnaffle 16y ago

Which is more likely, that 3D makes no sense to most people, or that you're one of the few which has problems watching 3D movies? I do know a few friends which thought Avatar 3D was "nothing special", but most of us thought it was great in 3D, easily worth the reduced light. I agree that a lot of bad 3D movies are put out there now, and I think the current hype will fade. But I have no doubt that the technology has advanced far enough that 3D is here to stay this time.

narag 16y ago

I happen to dislike the idea of most films and (horror!) tv and games using 3D, and at the same time I enjoyed 3D Avatar like a child. About the "small" thing, I sat at the 4th row (?) and the image was fine.