Ash Ketchum

Over the past 30-odd years, I've had exactly two really good experiences with 3-D in theaters, as opposed to maybe three dozen experiences ranging from bad to simply inadequate to just okay. This is not a ratio with the potential for much improvement.

I do not want and will never have 3-D capability in my home. Thankfully, I don't foresee a point in my lifetime where that will be my only option. I have three working TVs in my home and one in a storage unit, plus a solid supply of DVD players and VCRs, as well as portable DVD players (and one Blu-ray player), to watch the thousands of DVDs and VHS tapes (and handful of Blu-rays) I own that will keep me busy for the rest of my life. So I don't foresee a time when I'll ever be forced to watch something in 3-D, despite Alan Smithee's best efforts to insure otherwise.

Alan Smithee

I would want to see the specific movies at the specific theaters (or on the specific equipment) where this "physical discomfort" occurred, with them telling me exactly what caused that discomfort. Was it from an inability of them to see 3D, or was there a problem with the way the movie was produced or how it was presented in that particular situation? The default picture settings on most TVs are wrong and many people can't properly adjust them in 2D to save their life, so 3D is probably hopeless for them. (Though aside from the "inconvenience" of the glasses, they're just likely to watch it however it is and see nothing wrong with it, along with the soap opera effect and stretched 4x3 material.)

It all comes down to customers complaining to get what they want, whether it's right or wrong. There were people who complained enough about "them black bars" enough for the studios to do more 4x3 transfers for a while, and I know from experience that some people at a theater will yell at management to turn the volume down, even if it isn't loud by the filmmakers' standard or anyone who really appreciates sound. Apparently enough people "complained" about 3D to get theaters to run more showings in 2D- and I wonder how many complaints there would have been had the greedy theaters and studios not insisted on charging extra.

How are those "bullshit releases"? They both include the movies in 2D for those who want to watch them that way, and I got both of those on sale for the same price as a regular 2D release. Granted I didn't get them right on release day, but I got them. I don't see the prices for home 3D equipment being higher right now either; the main problem with pricing is at the theaters. One reason for that is RealD, which is now up for sale, covered the installation of many theaters' 3D equipment in exchange for a cut of the ticket sales. That might have worked for Avatar in the short term (though I didn't go see it), but it's hurting them long-term and the equipment has likely paid for itself by now anyways. It cracks me up when they alternate 3D and 2D showings in the same auditorium, as that means their precious 3D equipment is sitting there doing nothing while the 2D show runs!

I've loved 3D for a LONG time, and yes I do see it as a progression of technology, just like color over black and white- and that doesn't mean EVERY movie should be made in 3D or color. I was always frustrated that 3D came and went in short periods of time and mainly with bad movies. Now that "real" movies are using it, it just boggles my mind that people would say they don't like it and want it gone. It's clear however that many people can't process it properly and either don't see it or experience discomfort, though I wonder how many of them even wanted to see it properly to begin with.

At any rate, it'd be great if 3D became a standard feature on TVs whether people used it or not- just like digital sound outputs and smart features that aren't used by everyone. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Alan Smithee

Gotta add this funny anecdote- I read a post from someone who went to a free advance screening of some big movie, which was not in 3D in any shape or form, yet the audience was given 3D glasses as they went in and most of them kept them on during the movie! A friend of mine also went to see the 3D movie "Parasite" when it was out, but left because it was being projected only with one eye view- when he got his tickets refunded, he was told that nobody else had complained about it!

soundman2

One of the biggest mistake was NOT to have common standard for 3D glasses. Every major manufacturer had its own set of glasses. If they had adopted a common standard - people could have their own glasses they could bring to watch a movie at home. Or keep the glasses if they end by buying another brand TV later or as a second set.

Not sure why they keep the 3D BD prices high ( even though I have paid only average of $15 ) You can get a 2D-BD+DVD+DC for $5 to $8 and are asked to pay another $10 or more just to add 3D to the set.

Spiky

Some people get migraines from it as their eyes/brains can't manage this particular illusion. That may be a pretty small percentage, but your attitude is a little too inclusive to be friendly. Movies are already gimmicky enough to bother these people, 24 or 48 frames per second can mess with them even without forcing their eyes to work in a new way.

Personally, I hate the glasses, they do not fit my head, and they give me pain with the physical pressure. Next time I'm forced to see a 3D movie, I should probably grab the tape out of my car, break the glasses, and put them back together in a non-clamping, nerd fashion. Of course, that will probably throw off the 3D effect if they are too crooked.

As I said in the thread a couple years ago, it is a gimmick to fake something we all do every day. (if we have 2 good eyes) Depth perception onscreen can be achieved through various means, and 3D isn't enough better than other options for me personally to care. I tend to prefer careful attention to focus with varying lens aperture for depth.

I have no problem with that. I happen to like it when a theater alternates 2D and 3D versions. This gives me the opportunity to see the 2D version in the best theater for a new release. My local theater has 1 Atmos screen, I think it is still the only one in town. When they release a new blockbuster, it gets that screen. And when they THINK we all want it in 3D, there was a time when 3D was the only option. I can't even take all of my family or my best friend to such a show, due to the migraines. So, options are certainly the best way. That theater did seem to learn, more recent shows have had both formats available.

It's all one piece of equipment now. Just like at home. Aren't most using Christie DLPs with some form of digital source, still? I guess, some circuits in the projector aren't being used.

fumanstan

I should have known better then to engage in this conversation, as this tells me everything I need to know. I'm sure people hate 3D because they're just telling themselves they have trouble with it I don't understand your insistence that there must be some alternative reasons with the person or that it must be the equipment causing bad experiences with 3D.

It's bullshit to pay extra for the 3D releases just to get the wonderful Prometheus documentary or the extended cut of Wolverine. What you paid on sale later on is irrelevant, as by that time the regular releases have also been cheaper.

orangerunner

I have some friends-of-friends who went out and bought a 3D TV, 3D Blu-ray player and a 3D movie. I asked them about the glasses and they said they didn't need any glasses for 3D.

They were so happy-as-hell watching "3D" on their new system I didn't have the heart to burst their bubble.

I've also heard some people watching their TV with the theatrical "RealD" glasses and not realizing they don't actually work.

Ash Ketchum

A lot of theatrical 3-D is badly projected (low wattage bulb is a frequent culprit) or the sightlines in the theater are wrong for 3-D or something, so a lot of people have had bad experiences with 3-D (including me). Can you blame them for their antipathy?

When so few theaters run 3-D films correctly, how is that the viewer's fault?

orangerunner

Even when 3D is run correctly the colours are not as vibrant and bright as the 2D presentation. You're still watching the film through a pair of dark tinted glasses.

Remember too that the 3D process is a manipulation of your eyes (and brain) and does have varying effects on people, especially over a long period of time.

I find that 3D works best as a novelty act such as Shrek 3D at Universal Studios or Muppets 3D at California Adventures where the running time is 15-20 minutes long.

Franchot

Some life-extending drugs will be hitting the market in the late 2010s, so figure on adding another 30 to 40 years to your life expectancy. So, 3D films just might be in your future.

(We'll have TVs which won't require 3D glasses by that time, also.)

(Alan Smithee and I are like missionaries for 3D films. We WILL convert you to our religion!)

Alan Smithee

Well, they're not running FILMS anymore- and "so few theaters" is a bit of an overstatement- as critical as I am about theater presentation, I haven't seen any theaters mess up 3D specifically. So you're saying if theaters don't run 3D right, the solution is not to fix whatever they're doing wrong, but to just go back to 2D? Sounds like something from someone who already didn't like 3D in the first place.

I was a bit apprehensive about LONG movies in 3D, but I've watched several including Avatar and it was no problem for me although any novelty does wear off a bit after a while. I've even done all-day 3D marathons, just watching as many movies as I can in one day, though 3D stands out the most when you've watched a number of 2D movies and then watch something in 3D. My TV actually has an option to have a display come on every hour so you don't watch 3D "too long", guess that's another thing about 3D some people can't handle. One thing I have noticed is that I fall asleep to 3D easier than 2D, so I can't really watch anything in 3D if I'm not fully awake.

Ash Ketchum

Who says I want to take life-extending drugs?

No, I'm saying that most viewers have not seen 3-D under optimum conditions so they tend to be wary of 3-D. Most theaters do not run 3-D under optimum conditions. I'm not saying they "mess up 3D specifically." They just don't run it under the best conditions for appreciating 3-D and there are a lot of elements that have to be just right for 3-D to work well for most audiences. The two best modern 3-D experiences I've had were both in theaters with highly controlled and calibrated settings and not a typical multiplex. The typical multiplex manager is not going to take the care that those two theaters did. No amount of "fixing" is going to solve the problem of sloppy management--which tends to pervade nearly every arena of customer service and audience gathering in our society today. And I'm someone who jumped on the 3-D bandwagon early, writing a piece on it during the first big wave of 3-D revivals in a fanzine I published 32 years ago. I've wanted to like it, but the downside has consistently overwhelmed the upside.

RichC2

I like at-home 3D on my projector, glasses are just too expensive.

kefrank

Yes 3D is dead. 4K is the new home display technology that nobody needs but every manufacturer is pushing.

Alan Smithee

Uh, what about 4K IN 3D? Given how many people still can't tell the difference between standard-def and hi-def right now, I'm not putting much faith in 4K but I'll buy it when I can afford it.

My friend bought a 3D TV (after I did) and likes it, but he hasn't had a lot of faith in it- even before it came out he figured a lot of people wouldn't go for it because 3D actually requires you to WATCH what you're watching and pay attention to it without doing anything else at the same time! Sadly I've heard a few comments like that from people who've bought 3D- "It's pretty cool, but it's a lot harder to check my phone while I'm watching it!" No shit- no matter what I'M watching, whether it's 3D or 2D black and white with mono sound, the lights get turned off, volume is played at foreground level, computer and such go OFF and the phone doesn't get answered!

OldBoy

I have 3D TV and HBO on demand. Can I get or is it a cable subscriber thing?

E Unit

I've never seen HBO's 3D on Demand channel. Then again I've never looked for it. Guess I'll have to now.

SterlingBen

I buy/watch a new 3D movie ever other week or so, so I would say no.

Joe Schmoe

I wouldn't say it's dead. I know Disney has stopped releasing 3D BD's in the U.S. (have other studios?), but even Disney continues to release them in other markets. I'll continue to buy 3D BD's as long as studios keep making them... even if I have to buy them from outside the U.S.

fitprod

Yeah, but due to consumer demand, they've pulled the plug on 3D in the Dome completely, which is their biggest theater.

They're only showing 3D in one of their smaller theaters. Age of Ultron will be in 2D in the Dome and one other theaters.

fitprod

Alan Smithee

Sigh...

fumanstan

Must be the equipment and presentation!

Alan Smithee

Taking this a bit off topic now, but it seems the people running the Cinerama Dome lately don't quite know what they're doing. They had a 70mm showing of "2001" on Sunday that was cancelled because of a projectionist strike. Also saw some comments from a few years ago when "The Amazing Spider-Man" was showing there in 3D, but at one showing the 3D was non-existent through the first half, then the movie was stopped and came back on with the left and right images reversed after that. I'm still pissed about being in the area and could've seen the Sin City sequel there, but the next showing of that was in 2D only- so much for "consumer demand" there as I didn't go in!

I checked my local theater listings for Avengers and it's playing on plenty of screens here in 3D, on the "premium" screens at theaters that have those. I still won't see it because the prices are too high, but at least they're showing it right.

Nick Danger

Do you wear glasses to see well? I wear glasses. I'm a big guy with a proportionately big head, and the 3D glasses don't fit well over my big prescription frames. So their glasses are "inconvenient".

My glasses correct for astigmatism and are lineless bifocals, which means there is only one spot in the lens that is in focus. The 3D image swims in a disconcerting way when I turn my head to look at different spots in the screen. After half an hour, my head aches from eyestrain. I don't have that problem with a flat projection.

As for the theaters and movies, my first 3D movie was Avatar at the local Century cineplex. The second was an IMAX movie about dinosaurs at the Natural History Museum. After having a bad experience with two different technologies, I never tried a third time.

Alan Smithee

I wear glasses for nearsightedness, and never have a problem putting 3D glasses over them- sounds like in your situation, 3D just doesn't work for you. They do make polarized clip-ons though which might work better (my TV is active 3D so that's not an option for me.)

I keep hearing about 3D that doesn't require glasses being worked on; if they can do it then great, but it sounds like the effect won't be as dramatic, and likely it'll only work well from certain seats.