I hope its a fad. The 3D effects aren't impressive enough imo to warrant 5$ more on tickets and having to wear the glasses for the whole movie. Plus, not every movie is going to be able to do what Avatar did.

I think it's a mix of both.

well keep in mind this new way of making 3d movies is still pretty rough and recent
but i personally think that in the next decade or so the art will be more perfected and most if not all movies will be 3d. Soon trailers wont even specify that its in 3d, itll just be expected

At 4/4/10 10:57 PM, MadCow wrote:

At 4/4/10 10:56 PM, JKMonkey wrote: I think its just a fad because IMO its stupid to have to wear some stupid glasses while watching your movie

i concur; wearing glasses is and always has been and always will be for gay nerds in this observers humble opinion

Yeah, watching 3D movies made me realize how stupid it feels to be wearing glasses is. Sucks for people with bad eyes.

Anyways I don't think it's just a fad, it will definitely stick around but I hope not all movies start having it until they make 3D contacts.

It's more about depth now.

If it's the future, I hope to God they don't keep those glasses.

3D movies are just more eye candy, we don't need more eye candy: we need better movies.

3D gaming is similar, but that hasn't fully developed yet.

At 4/5/10 02:13 AM, Natdaprat wrote: 3D movies are just more eye candy, we don't need more eye candy: we need better movies.

3D gaming is similar, but that hasn't fully developed yet.

Did you see Alice in Wonderland? Horrible.

If you look 3-D technology is nothing new, as it's been stated. What the hype is about it the boom in the readily available 3-D technology. I went to see my first 3-D Film the other night, the glasses they gave us made me feel like I was wearing sun glasses, they needed to be cleaned didn't fit right, and didn't do that much. within 5 minutes I had taken them off and was contemplating demanding my 7 bucks back for the waste of what they were offering. I'd say once the hype dies down it will be over with, either that or they get something that actually works, and is a bit more ergonomic.

The glasses I was wearing looked something similar to these http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/3 D-glasses-404_675044c.jpg

I tell you what though, 3-D is being taken for granted, so much so, that I saw one film advertise as "Also in 2D". Now, when you need to advertise that the option for 2D cinema viewing, as opposed to pointing out the 3D viewing option, I think that's when it starts getting a bit much.

At 4/4/10 11:48 AM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: Hopefully it's a fad. Avatar is one of few films which had the 3D done correctly. A lot of film studios are taking movies which were made to be 2D, and making them 3D, and it apparently is nowhere near the quality of films like Avatar, which always intended to use 3D technology.

3D films give me a headache too, and I find it more difficult to watch the film. Also, the glasses are really obtrusive, and I can't communicate with my friends properly. Not worth the extra cost, IMO. If the films aren't going to be made to use the 3D effectively, like Avatar did, then it shouldn't be done. It should be something they break out rarely for films that would be greatly enhanced by 3D, not fucking Clash of the Titans.

This x1000. And don't forget about how 3-D overemphasizes shots' subjects and takes away the potential richness of frames (basically, 3-D makes me claustrophobic), or how the glasses dim the image.

I think this will be a fad. People are going to get sick of the lower-quality 3-D movies, the headache and nausea complaints are going to get worse as 3-D releases become more frequent, and nobody is going to be willing to shell out the cash for a 3-D TV when almost no TV programming is ideal for 3-D.

This isn't the next big step in film technology. It's just a stupid gimmick.

Well I am not amused with this "3D thing", and it hurts my eyes watching 3D movies. But much to my dismay, it seems that this isn't just a temporary fad.

I think 3D movies are the future. Why walk around with one eye closed, when you can open both and and have instant depth perception?

Beyond 3D glasses, I think hologram technology or something like that is the way to go.

everytign is alreadty int erhw third diemntion

I, for one, don't feel that 3D movies will change the way we watch films. I mean, I hate it when I have to wear those stupid glasses, and the screen seems to darken with them on.
I'd always prefer a normal movie to a 3D one.

One thing that's kind of been hinted at is that to utilise the 3D technology, a filmmaker needs to have the sufficient budget and the right resources, all of which will only be able to be supplied by major studios, and the biggest cases would go out to so-called 'auteurs' like James Cameron. Film culture is governed by judging the material as a commodity, definitely, but film culture isn't just about making money. Independent filmmakers will have restricted access to the technology, and avant-garde filmmakers (who aren't exactly sitting on top of the hill) will have to utilise what's there for their own means, and that may not be successful per se - see Hans Richter's Rhythmus 21 and what it does with animation.

But back to independent film, remember that the '90s brought us films like Pulp Fiction, a film of homages that loves the fact that it's strictly not cutting-edge, and Clerks, with its shoestring budget and 'primitive' style that has its own sort of thing going on that attracts viewers. We actually have 'post-classical' styles going at it too - I can imagine that so-called 'MTV editing' just wouldn't work in 3D, so fast-paced films like Run Lola Run that are arranged like this would be completely inappropriate, so there's always another kind of attraction.

Before Inglourious Basterds was released, I read a really dumb article in the Guardian, that went something like, 'IF THIS FILM FAILS, FILM IS DOOMED', and it only took the first handful of comments to point out that all film =/= Hollywood alone.

It's interesting stuff really. I'm from the camp that claims film is by no means technology based at its core. Funnily enough, some of the more snarky film intellectuals compare Avatar to films like these. Avatar is pretty 'primitive', at least in theory. The characters are written to be two-dimensional (ironically), the technology is described ahead of most other things about the film, and the experience as far as the audience is concerned is one of unfamiliarity. This is put simply, but yeah.

I like 3D movies =D

I think it is starting to become the future since companies are even working on 3D in regular TV's nowadays. But in my opinion the technology really needs to develop more before it starts to become interesting. I've watched a couple of 3D movies so far and to be honest I was not impressed. I still got this feeling that I'm merely deceiving my eyes and am not actually watching something in 3D. On top of that, I often noticed how a large part of the screen is nothing more than a blur. Especially with Avatar there was often only one object sharp and the rest was just blurry.

So right now the 3D is really not worth paying extra for in my opinion.