Sub-Zero

Most of the time when I read people's reviews of 3D movies, they always talk about how "gimmicky" the 3D in the movie was, or how they were happy that the movie didn't use gimmicky 3D. However, with all of the post-converted 3D movies with "barely there" 3D, does anyone like the old, gimmicky 3D? At least with those types of 3D movies I know that I am actually seeing a 3D movie and not paying extra for essentially a slightly darker, but not 3D movie.

inri222

The last movie I watched in 3D was Flesh for Frankenstein in the 80's. I was in my teens and really enjoyed it.

TomOpus

The Stewardesses 3D was fun to watch. Hell, I don't even remember if there was any real plot. Didn't really matter.

Troy Stiffler

Some of the current 3D movies are gimmicky. Residential Evil: Afterlife is one.

Mike86

I enjoyed A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas in 3D because of the over the top, goofy 3D. Normally I'm not a fan of 3D in general though and will only go if its the only option.

Alan Smithee

Many of the 1980s 3D movies had blatant gimmicks, like Comin' At Ya and Friday the 13th Part 3 (both of which are rather pointless to watch in 2D.) I haven't seen anything recent come close to those, Harold and Kumar tried a bit but just didn't go far enough. Journey to the Center of the Earth had a couple gimmicks also but still paled in comparison. It seems most of the recent 3D movies are trying to show that it can enhance a movie without resorting to gimmicks, but they're still fun once in a while.

Ash Ketchum

Was TRANSFORMERS 3 "gimmicky"? If so, then, yes! If it's not considered gimmicky, then, NO!

Trevor

I have a 40 or so 3D films and enjoy them all. 3D is a gimmick as much as sound was a gimmick. It's just a slight tweak to make films more visually immersive imho.

Giles

'sound' is pretty integral in my mind - adding 3D? yes, it is a gimmick.

My Other Self

Same here. Harold & Kumar was pretty good because it was cheesy 3D.

I've always wanted to see Friday the 13th Part 3 properly in 3D, but short of a theatrical retro screening somewhere I don't think that will ever happen.

GoldenJCJ

I don't like the gimmicky 3D simply because it's a one time only deal. It's fun to watch in the theater but the "coming right at you" gimmick takes me right out of the movie when I watch it at home in 2D. As soon as I see it I think "oh yeah, this was 3D in the theaters, no wonder those items are needlessly floating and flying toward me". I currently don't have a 3D TV nor do I have any immediate plans to get one so for now any 3D movie that looks ridiculous in 2D is useless to me.

Speaking of post conversion 3D, the two best examples of 3D I've ever seen have been post conversion jobs. Both Gravity and Titanic looked amazing in 3D and actually added to the overall experience of the films. Something I can't say about the other handful of 3D films I've seen.

Giles

even though I thought the movie was a mess (and not really all that good) the best looking 'post converted' 3D film that impressed me this year was 'Hercules'

Joe Schmoe

I like 3D movies that have screen elements coming off the screen toward the audience. Some call that gimmicky and that's okay. Personally, I don't think it's any more gimmicky than surround sound (which I also love), but for some reason sounds whizzing past audiences' heads and coming at them from all directions is more widely accepted. I'm always disappointed when a director makes a 3D film and chooses not to have any screen elements come at the audience, especially when the film was shot with 3D cameras and not converted in post production. Some directors ooh and ah over the added depth 3D gives their films and say that's the main/only reason to use 3D. They think breaking the plane toward the audience with visuals is a no-no, yet they're perfectly fine doing it with sound effects. Whatever. Gravity is a good example of this. For a converted film it had lots of depth, but there were few pop-out moments. (Off the top of my head, I can only think of Sandra Bullock's teardrop floating off the screen.) I had people over to watch this film on my 3D projector, and when it was over they said they expected more from a 3D experience. I had to agree with them because I've had better 3D experiences with other films and this projector.

I think bad conversions as well as some directors' reluctance to have pop-out elements in their films probably leads to some shoppers being underwhelmed when they test drive 3D TVs in stores: the movie they're watching as a demo could have 3D effects that are "barely there", and that doesn't bode well for 3D's reputation.

I agree that A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas and the last 2 Resident Evil movies have lots of gimmicky (pop-out) effects. So do Journey 2 The Mysterious Island, Despicable Me and the last 2 Final Destination flicks. The best 3D effects I've seen in a converted film this year are in Edge of Tomorrow.

taffer

Sound is a gimmick?

There's a huge huge difference between the silent era movies and the movies of today. You really want to watch something like Lords of the Rings or The Matrix or Terminator completely silent?

Let's go back to the silent era, people, because sound is clearly a gimmick!

Trevor

Hyperbole, jeez.

Alan Smithee

Not completely silent, they'd have a guy playing an organ through them

Groucho

I played my organ through Showgirls.

Troy Stiffler

I think that high quality, immersive 3D IS important and the future of tentpole cinema.

It'll always be less important than many other elements. In the same way that Transformers 4 spends a ton of money on the sound mix. And the sound is only utilitarian in a movie like The Judge. There aren't many places for a story like The Judge to take 3D.

I hope it sticks around and the industry continues to support it.

Mike86

I dunno modern 3D has been around for quite a while (yes I know it existed before but the popularity of it again is fairly recent) and to me still normally just feels like an unneeded gimmick in most instances. I guess for me its just something that I feel rarely enhances my overall viewing experience.

Matthew Chmiel

In this renaissance era of 3D if you well, very few live-action releases have taken full advantage of 3D.

Titanic is the only post-convert that I thought looked phenomenal in 3D (I don't count Gravity as a post-convert as most of the film is 3D computer-generated).

For films natively shot in 3D? Avatar, Dredd, Final Destination 5, Hugo, Tron: Legacy, A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas, and the Step Up franchise are the only stand-outs I can really think of if I were recommending someone 3D titles to check out.

Numanoid

I love the gimmicky (pop out) 3D effects, and truly wish more films utilized them. The whole "looking through a window" depth-of-field thing is great, but for 3D to really shine, it needs to break that barrier between you and the screen. I really don't understand why people wouldn't want that. To continue the sound analogy (which is wholly appropriate, I think), it's like people demanding mono, because stereo is too gimmicky.

Troy Stiffler

And, again, it's a tool to be used. It's not going to help to cut to a 3D gavel closeup being used during "The Juror". But watching a Marvel movie in diorama form, with all of the 3D working together? Love it.

3D is still developing. When the camera moves too fast, the images "skip" in 3D. The science of that is beyond my understanding. But the smoother and more defined things look, the better.

I think Gravity is the best reference for 3D right now.

Sub-Zero

Thanks for all the replies, and I'm glad that I'm not the only person that enjoys 3D movies where objects also come out of the screen, and like others have said, I wish that more directors, especially the ones that film their movies in 3D, would consider also having objects occasionally pop out of the screen as well.

GoldenJCJ

I wouldn't call it "gimmicky" but I much prefer 3D for CGI animated movies over live action. To me most live action movies (with the exception of the two I mentioned above) don't look right in 3D, actor's faces look particularly bulbous to me. Animated CGI films like How to Train Your Dragon look great in 3D to me. I'm still not a fan of object flying toward the audience for no reason but a good flying sequence looks terrific - and it doesn't look pointless in 2D either.

gp1086

This - exactly. I haven't seen a 3D movie since Gravity.