3D Movies- The Future or a Fad?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Huntn, Jan 4, 2010.

  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    I just saw Avatar and specifically avoided the 3D version. Previous 3D experiences such as Beowulf did nothing for me. I accept paying extra for the glasses, but I resent when I bring those same glasses back for the next movie, they still make me pay the 3D price which is about $3 more. In the Avatar thread, some people think the 3D version is pretty good.

    The theater we went to see Avatar at had both 3D and classic showings. I assume this is because they did not have all of their theaters rigged for 3D. I wonder if there are any statistics regarding the acceptance of 3D as a movie medium?

    What do you think- Is 3D here to stay or is it just a fad?
     
  2. Shotgun OS macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    #2
    I think it's a fad. 3D is too clunky to work right now. Maybe in the future, if they get great 3D to work without glasses, then it might be the future. Until then, I don't think it's going to be the next big thing.
     
  3. NathanCH macrumors 65816

    NathanCH

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    #3
    Fad. It doesn't add anything to the movie. It's cool right now but eventually it will probably either become annoying or just not impressive.
     
  4. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #4
    Remove the need for extra glasses, stop giving headaches and get the picture sharper and maybe then it will become something permanent. At the moment it's a fad.
     
  5. mstrze macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #5
    Saw 'Up' this summer and didn't have to pay extra for the 3D version. :confused:

    That movie handled 3D well in my opinion...no cheesy effects...it was just an extension of the movie, like having it appear more true-to-life...like having surround sound or color vs. black and white.

    I do agree that it will be more successfull when/if it could be done without the need for glasses.
     
  6. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #6
    It's a fad.
    It was the "future of cinema" in the 50s.
    Then in the 80s there was an effort suggesting it was the "future of TV".

    Until there's movie quality holographic projections it'll always be a reoccurring "future of" something...
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    It was a fad back when you used to get books that used 3d glasses, it still is, it could be better in the future if its not just an illusion, could be interesting also if the illusion part was taken away you might actually get a different view of the movie depending on where you sat... maybe that wouldn't be so great though for some people. :D
     
  8. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    It's a fad and better damn well stay that way.

    I have no desire to wear glasses while watching a movie.
     
  9. mstrze macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #9
    I have no choice...unless I put in contacts that day. :eek:
     
  10. Teh Don Ditty macrumors G4

    Teh Don Ditty

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland
    #10
    Nor do I. I should've clarified another set of glasses I need to wear.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    It's not a fad. A lot of people really like it (myself included). Plus, it's a good way to get people into the cinemas. If cinemas can't offer something substantially different from home theater, they will cease to exist. 3D is one way to do that.
     
  12. iOrlando macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #12
    I would have to say it is not a fad.

    1) something that is a fad has to be deemed very popular and in common use relatively speaking. Most movie theaters have what 1 film at a time that is in 3-D? How is that popular and common use?

    Sure the response and word of mouth about it is very high, but I wouldnt equate that with popular as in all movies, or even 10% of movies, are now using it.

    I use contact lenses, so wearing 3D glasses was fine and I actually thought they were pretty cool to wear.

    I saw avatar in 3D, and yes there were some parts a little fuzzy but I thought it was a great movie experience. $14 for one ticket...not so much a fun movie experience.

    so in summary, I dont think it is even technically a fad, but I do think it will gain popularity as time goes on.
     
  13. SpookTheHamster macrumors 65816

    SpookTheHamster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #13
    I think it will be the future of cinema, and eventually home TV, though it won't make huge progress until the glasses are done away with.

    Film and television are all about immersion. To be truly immersed in a film is easier if it looks real, like another poster mentioned; surround sound and colour are other similar advances. Both of which were 'fads' when they began, as was the talkie.

    I saw Avatar in 3D a few days ago and I was very impressed. I like how the 3D was used in a more realistic manner than most 3D films, which use it only to have things flying out of the screen at you.
     
  14. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    If that is all there is to see, some people will go see it in 3D. But in combination with the price and dislike of the effect, another group will wait for it to come out in DVD. I hope enough wait to send a message. I think $14 for a movie ticket is too much when I'm used to getting two tickets at matinee for about that price (actually $16). If I pay extra, I want more. That equation does not work for an effect that is more of a distraction.
     
  15. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #15
    I suspect many movies will go that way in the near future. They need to have some gimmick to get people away from their DVD downloads and into the theaters, and if Avatar is any indication, 3D will do the trick right up until 3D finds its way onto the desktop.
     
  16. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #16
    Coming to a desktop near you. HDMI 1.4 (now with 3D).
     
  17. bobob macrumors 68030

    bobob

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    #17
    There were only two movies in 2009 that used 3D to effectively enhance the movie - - Coraline and Avatar.

    Imho, the 3D in Up (a great movie) actually detracted from the film. When I saw it a second time in 2D at the theatre, the colors were much brighter and more vivid. Pixar animation is already spectacular "3D" CGI as it is.

    So, for the most part it is definitely being used as a simple marketing gimmick, but in the hands of a director who puts some thought into it's integral use in their film, it can be an authentic artistic tool.
     
  18. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #18
    I prefer when you put the glasses on for select scenes, rather than 2.5 hours of Avatar 3D. You sort of get used to it after a while and the novelty wears off.
     
  19. Mike Macintosh macrumors regular

    Mike Macintosh

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Location:
    Washington State
    #19
    3D has been around for years, and never really went hardly anywhere, it's a fad that just got popular again recently, I usually get a headache with that whole red and blue glasses thing and I prefer 2D anyways, so I will stick to that thank you.
     
  20. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #20
    You only see one 3D movie in most theaters at a time because movies that use the RealD tech (which almost all of them do at this point) use a digital projector that pushes images out at a much higher frames per second than a normal movie to assist with not having it blur along with showing both eyes images. The polarized lenses do make the movie appear darker as some have noted.

    Part of the reason for the more expensive tickets are to recoup the cost of the new systems and of course the other part is the theaters being greedy and looking for an excuse to bump up ticket prices. I paid $9.50 to see a matinee of Avatar 3D last week.

    Right now I'm guessing the studios are coordinating the release of 3D films due to most theaters only having one projector capable of displaying the movie. I would guess studios also like the tech because if all the movies were playing in 3D and only offered in 3D, it'd be a pain in the butt to pirate the movie while in theaters.

    I don't know think that it will be around forever, but I'd guess it will be around for a while. Wikipedia has films prepped through 2012.

    I enjoy them. I have sufficient home theater equipment to watch movies there but I can be lured out of the house for a 3D movie. At least until 3D TV becomes more common place and then well... they'll need to up the ante with Smell-O-Vision!
     
  21. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
    Theaters make little to no money on ticket sales as most of the door goes to the studio which is why concession prices are so high and there is more pre-movie advertising than in years past.


    Lethal
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    It is not real 3-D until they find a way to make real depth of field and lose the glasses. Something jumping out at you is not 3-D.
     

Share This Page