?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

3D at the box office

I was reading links on Twitter, and one of them lead to an article about 3D at the box office.

Let me come out and say it: I hate 3D.

Let me then qualify that statement, because there are movies I deliberately went to see in 3D. All one of them. (This would be Avatar). Okay, that's out of the way.

I am Asian. I have a small nose. I already wear glasses (my eyes are far too dry for contacts. I know. I've tried). Can you guess where this is going? Yes!

When I go to a movie and discover that it is, in fact, in 3D, I usually have 2 kids and a husband in tow, we are on a time limit, and the show we've chosen unfortunately happens to be in the 3D theatre, something that's not clear until we arrive at said theatre. I pay more money for this privilege, and I am given oversized, clunky, 3D glasses which have to sit on top of the glasses I already wear, and guess what? My nose is not long enough and the glasses fall off. I spend the entire movie fighting a rearguard action to be able to watch the movie at all.

More than half of the movies my youngest wants to see end up being in 3D when we choose and reach the theatre. I would pay extra money if I could avoid 3D entirely for every single one of those movies. First? The 3D isn't necessary. I don't find that it adds much. I could be wrong, because if the 3D glasses fall off, I can't really see what's going on past the horrible blur, and as mentioned above, the 3D glasses are always almost falling off.

So, with apologies to those who like 3D, I am doing a hopeful little dance at the prospect of fewer of them.

Comments

( 36 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
trektone
Aug. 26th, 2010 10:51 pm (UTC)
I would pay (extra money) to have a picture of you wearing 3D glasses.
msagara
Aug. 27th, 2010 04:34 am (UTC)
Thomas says: It's so nice that you have such supportive friends.
(no subject) - trektone - Aug. 31st, 2010 04:33 am (UTC) - Expand
wiredwizard
Aug. 26th, 2010 10:53 pm (UTC)
I'm with you on the dislike of the new fad of 3D movies. I've seen a few and for the most part felt it was just a cash cow rip off. Plus, most 3D movies leave me w/ such a headache afterwards.

The sooner they go away, the better.

(And now they're starting to push 3D tv sets too...)
lithera
Aug. 26th, 2010 10:57 pm (UTC)
I don't think I would mind 3D so much if the people making the movies were using it for more then GOTCHA in your face sorts of effects. What I saw at Comic Con of Tron: Legacy was lovely and I might see that in 3D but most of it is cheap tricks and oddness.
mmarques
Aug. 27th, 2010 07:06 pm (UTC)
Coraline was the worst on that... with a needle coming straight at me! Avatar actually seemed the best... nothing really jumping out at you and more like looking through an open window.

Whats just as bad is seeing movies intended for 3D but in 2D... because there are shots that are just obviously there for the 3D effect.
(no subject) - lithera - Aug. 27th, 2010 07:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
shadowkindrd
Aug. 26th, 2010 11:19 pm (UTC)
I refuse to go to 3D movies. Not only do I have the glasses issue (my nose isn't quite that short, but my glasses are bulky), but I refuse to deal with 3-D images messing with my head. Give me 2D, tyvm, have a nice day, don't let the 3D hit you in the butt on the way out.

twiegand
Aug. 26th, 2010 11:41 pm (UTC)
But you have such a cute little nose. I avoid the 3d movies because I get motion sickness too easily. I can't imagine how sick I would have been at Avatar had I seen those flight scenes in 3D. Visual and motion inputs need to agree.
maiac
Aug. 26th, 2010 11:44 pm (UTC)
Call me cynical, but I consider 3D to be a substitute for, y'know, good plot and acting and stuff like that.
maga_dogg
Aug. 26th, 2010 11:59 pm (UTC)
Well, it's best-suited to spectacle-type action blockbusters, which are not overly endowed with those qualities in the first place.

I think 3D is more than a gimmick, and my reasons for not being uncomfortable with it are mostly just bigger versions of the reasons why I'm not entirely comfortable with the cinema experience in general.
(no subject) - mmarques - Aug. 27th, 2010 07:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - qiihoskeh - Aug. 29th, 2010 11:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
qiihoskeh
Aug. 27th, 2010 12:13 am (UTC)
I've never seen a 3D movie; I'm waiting for 4D.
tobemeagain
Aug. 27th, 2010 12:13 am (UTC)
I'm with you on the glasses, they should have clip-ons for the almost 1/3 of the population that wears glasses. Recently I've also gotten optical nerve damage and 3D does zero for me, I literally cannot see the effect anymore - so I save the money and have my friends tell me what they think.

Sorry youngest is so into them though. *winces*
mtlawson
Aug. 27th, 2010 12:36 am (UTC)
I feel for you, Michelle, I really do. I have to take Dramamine before I watch IMAX, OMNIMAX, or 3D, so I know what you're going through. Especially if I forget the darn stuff in the first place.

That said, the new craze is merely a repeat of the original 3D revolution in the 50's/60's. Or maybe Cinerama. The only movie that probably integrated it seamlessly into the environment was Avatar, but having only one out of many used in a non-"OOOO....look at me!" fashion means that Hollywood learned the wrong lesson from Avatar. Integration is key, not the tech itself.

mightydoll
Aug. 27th, 2010 12:39 am (UTC)
I, too, hate 3d movies. Baz dislikes them, too, as they give him a headache. The last one we saw was Coraline, at MC's insistence and she left there saying that she didn't think it was as cool as she'd anticipated, so I guess we lucked out. Sorry your guy is so in to them. :P
spookyevilone
Aug. 27th, 2010 01:18 am (UTC)
I can't watch 3D movies because they trigger migraines for me. My sister loves them and she has glasses. Her solution has been to make sure there are rubber bands in her purse so she can attach the arms of the icky plastic glasses to her regular glasses and not bother trying to actually wear the plastic ones. It reportedly works.
slweippert
Aug. 27th, 2010 01:33 am (UTC)
I am so with you on this.

While Avatar was visually beautiful, it was filmed purposely for the technology. Other movies, not so much. The extra charges for the "privilage" of the unnessary and tacked on at the last minute 3D burns me.
Hollywood, if you want to charge me more money, actually make it worth something, not just "Avatar made lots of money with this we can to!"
parsnip_chan
Aug. 27th, 2010 01:43 am (UTC)
I've often wondered if the fact we wear glasses at all doesn't prohibit the 3-D effect from working properly because I can't begin to count how often I've shocked friends, coworkers and even family when I told them I didn't see how the 3-D effect in Avatar aided the film at all (or in other films for that matter). Sure, it added a bit of depth in a few scenes, but overall? I didn't see much difference in the 3-D experience versus the 2-D experience, but, like you, I do wear glasses and likewise can't move to contacts because my eyes are to dry.

Either way, I do wish they gave more options for 3-D movies versus 2-D or else just kept the 3-D to IMAX.
tobemeagain
Aug. 27th, 2010 01:51 am (UTC)
Not to butt in here *winces* sorry. If you're not seeing the 3D effect that is usually because of the shape of you ocular lens and/or your optic nerve. (Ah the joys of spending lots of time at the eye specialist). It has to do with how you interpret the image in your brain, not usually the glasses - though those effects can cause major headaches.

Again apologies, like I said I've spent way to much time with eye specialists and neurologists.
(no subject) - parsnip_chan - Aug. 27th, 2010 01:56 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - nightsinger - Aug. 27th, 2010 05:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lyssabits - Aug. 29th, 2010 08:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - msagara - Aug. 27th, 2010 04:33 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - phantom_wolfboy - Aug. 28th, 2010 02:57 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - heinous_bitca - Aug. 27th, 2010 12:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
damedini
Aug. 27th, 2010 02:18 am (UTC)
3D totally /made/ Avatar for me, but otherwise it's used too often with little to no understanding of how to make the best use of it. Most movies don't need to be 3D, and 3D is actually detrimental/distracting. I would love to see a filmmaker really get good with it and learn how to use the 3D tool to the utmost. Then they can innovate so we don't need the stupid glasses.
_ocelott_
Aug. 27th, 2010 04:28 am (UTC)
I'm not fond of the 3D myself. I find it interesting that they've done a number of kids' movies in 3D, since the glasses only come in one size. This means they fall off my 3-year-old's face so fast he decides about 2 minutes in they're not worth wearing. They really do need to make more than just the one-size-fits-nobody glasses. Or, y'know, get over this love affair with adding special effects that are both expensive and unnecessary.
msagara
Aug. 27th, 2010 04:32 am (UTC)
I find it interesting that they've done a number of kids' movies in 3D, since the glasses only come in one size.

Since almost all of the movies we see are kids' movies (this year in the first year where it hasn't been 100%), yes. Mine are old enough now that the glasses don't fall of their faces -- but people with four and five year olds in Despicable Me probably had issues -- something I hadn't really given much thought because I was too busy ranting about the glasses falling off me. Ahem.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 36 comments — Leave a comment )