Troy Stiffler

No, it won't end. The clarity will just get better and better.

Tarantino

Some movies are awesome in 3D, some suck. We're is the option for, "I don't love it or hate it, but I think it's here to stay"?

islandclaws

Like others have said, if a film was shot in 3D, with the director and DP doing their best to make it an immersive experience, then I'm all for it. Films like Prometheus and Avatar are the best examples, but even something like Texas Chainsaw 3D wound up using it effectively. I won't, however, pay for post-conversions except in one instance: IMAX. I like seeing movies on an IMAX screen. Sometimes they're only in 3D when I do so, so obviously I'm stuck there.

But 3D won't go away because of what it does internationally. Not only do overseas audiences still pay a premium to watch our movies in 3D, but it's also a pretty damn good piracy deterrent. Kinda hard to cam a 3D movie and let people experience that at home, right? That's a big part of the 3D push all around the world - you can't replicate it at home with a bootleg. If you're someone who is willing to watch a cammed film then you clearly have no care for the quality of whatever you're watching, but by studios selling people on the experience of 3D it gets more asses into seats.

Franchot

I fully enjoy 3D movies and think they will continue to improve. Animation movies work particularly well with the technology and several mainstream directors (Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Cameron, etc.) have explored the technology with favorable results.

I don't mind wearing the 3D glasses which I wear them over my regular glasses.

Ranger

I think it will continue to exist for the big action movies and kids movies but that's it.

How many horror movies were in 3D?

DynamicKnight

I like 3D as long as it doesn't get gimmicky. I like the sense of depth but don't like when they just blatantly put in scenes with things flying at you. I did hate it back when I had to wear the 3D glasses over my regular ones, but after I had laser eye surgery last year, it isn't a problem anymore.

bootsy

Not really that overwhelming.

bunkaroo

When I posted it was 70% hated.

Right now it is 64% hate vs 18% like not counting Twikoff or "not sure". That's closer to 4-to-1 than 3-to-1. If you want to play semantics that's up to you, but the poll is a clear indicator of what folks here think of it.

bootsy

LOL I'm not playing semantics but it seems like you are playing pick and choose by not counting things (Twikoff, not sure) that do count towards not hating it.

bunkaroo

Are you serious? You can't count those two against either side. That's being fair. Right now you have 27 people who definitely don't like it and 8 who definitely do. I'm not sure how much more clear it needs to be made for you.

May be if I posted it in 3D?

DthRdrX

I love 3D at home, not so much in a theater. Problem is the display being used. Theater screens/glass combo just are not bright enough to do it justice. I believe it will evolve over time though, as it has with home displays.

The glasses complaint is easily fixed at home if you have a passive set. I have a pair of flip ups that I can place on my glasses and don't even realize they are there.

Matthew Chmiel

Out of 15 theaters playing the film in Vegas, Iron Man 3 is currently playing in 2D on 40 screens and 3D on 34 screens (including IMAX 3D presentations). Two theaters are also presenting the film specifically in 2D only. I would've agreed with your comment maybe two-to-three years ago, but since 3D ticket sales have diminished greatly in North America, theaters have been booking far more 2D showings than 3D.

This. 3D is far superior in a home setting than in a theatrical setting. Not only due to the ability of television screens providing a far brighter picture, but also the fact that you're right within the proper viewing angle unlike that of a theater. With laser projectors rolling out within the next few years, theatrical 3D presentations might become better, but who knows.

For every film I see in 3D that looks great (for example: Jurassic Park 3D and The Croods), I see quite more that look like shit (for example: Texas Chainsaw 3D, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, Top Gun, Jack the Giant Slayer, Iron Man 3, etc). G.I. Joe: Retaliation and Oz had "okay" 3D presentations.

Dr. DVD

Is Twikoff still alive?

Finisher

1. It's not a fad.
2. It's not going to end.
3. There's nothing wrong with one 3D event film every couple of months.
4. I'm not a 3D fan, but the few films that got it right - Hugo, Avatar, Life of Pi - got it really right.

Ginwen

I hate it, but I picked I'm not sure, because I'm not. I hope it goes away but a lot of people seem to like it. So there, you can count at least one of those not sure votes as a hate it

moviefan2k4

Not where I live in Dallas. Almost every time a movie is released in 3D, the theater has about 15 showtimes a day, and maybe 4 in 2D.

Sub-Zero

I don't particularly care for 3D movies either, but obviously movie studios and major theater chains have already invested far too much money into new 3D technology to let it just die after only a few years. I think if the international market for 3D films starts to cool like here in the US, people will start seeing fewer and fewer 3D films being released, but I think that enough money has now been invested in 3D technology that there will likely always be those big "3D event movies" being released a few times a year.

Shannon Nutt

The real reason studios love it is because of the overseas market. 3D does okay in North America, but it sells like gangbusters overseas. I enjoy 3D quite a bit at home, but I've only seen a few movies in the theater where the experience was enjoyable (Avatar, Hugo, and Life of Pi).

E Unit

I avoid it at the theater, but watch it occasionally at home. Kid loves the animated stuff. I could care less if it dies out or stays. My guess is that in this digital world Hollywood now resides in, 3D will be permanent.

bluetoast

If a movie is done in 3D, then I try to see it that way. But so far the best ones have been Avatar, Hugo and Life of Pi, and hell I'll throw Titanic in there, since that looked good and took a fuckload of work. JP I was not too impressed by. I don't see it as a cash grab in Cameron's case since he fucking had a team develop new cameras specifically for this, and has been working in the medium for years. He even had RR make Spy Kids 3 in 3D to test out viability.

But with a lot of movies jumping on the bandwagon or the majority of post-convesion jobs, yeah I can see how it's annoying.

And glasses, well those won't always be needed for 3D. They are far from having it be screen size, but Cameron has talked about using laptop sized 3D displays, and the 3DS is a small step in that direction.

RichC2

I have a similar issue there, for every Life of Pi you end up with a dozen post-conversion cash grabs.

Mabuse

All previous attempts at 3-D have fizzeled as fads pretty quickly. What killed it in the '50s was poor presentation of the 3-D effect. The effect back then was just as good as today but it was frequently miss-projected and audiences quickly developed an impression that there were movies with good 3-D and "bad" 3-D. There are many reports near the end of the cycle with critics expressing that Revenge of the Creature was "bad" 3-D, speculating that an inferrior process must have been used. This is not true, leaving most 3-D history buffs to lay the blame at the feet of distributors and/or projectionists who couldn't present the film properly.

Which leads me to believe that if anything kills today's 3-D fad it will be these fucking post conversions. Audiences will begin to think 3-D is inferrior because they see these mediocre releases.

Also, as a father of a 5 year old I hate 3D animated films. Little kids don't enjoy wearing the glasses.

Alan Smithee

I'm surprised 3D has lasted this long with the upcharges at theaters. I love 3D, but refuse to support the extra charges at theaters when the regular prices are already out of hand. Instead, I buy all the 3D Blu-Rays I can afford.

While post-conversion can look good (see my review of Top Gun), it's still silly and inexcusable to put out new movies like that. Shoot the damn thing in real 3D, using two separate images, or just release it in 2D.

Matthew Chmiel

Bullshit.

The first ten pages of Fandango in "Dallas, TX" show Iron Man 3 on 80 screens in 2D whereas the 3D showings take up 85. Plenty of showtimes to go around for both formats.

I live in about a 15-minute driving distance of four theaters in Vegas and it's an even 50/50 split between the 2D and 3D showings.

DynamicKnight

Yeah, typically I am more interested in seeing a movie in 3D when I know it was actually shot in 3D and not a post-conversion rush job. Avatar looked absolutely amazing, but not too many movies since then have come close to that standard.

As far as glasses-less 3D, they have to find a way around the viewing angle issue. The 3D effect of the 3DS is completely ruined if you look at it from anything else but completely dead-on.