Sub-Zero

Too bad movie studios don't seem to understand this.

http://www.thewrap.com/node/18658

Navinabob

It looks like a company overseas has got a non-glasses 3D TV set going. Once that technology catches on I expect more 3D.

Sub-Zero

^I think if 3D technology that didn't require special glasses was the standard, the 3D format would be a lot more popular. Also, if the price came down that would help as well.

Gunde

The biggest problem with 3D for me is that we're still some years from being able to fully enjoy them at home too.

Panda Phil

Then of course theres the whole 'the pictures too dark' problem. That and the extra price has kept me away from 3D.

And really, is 3D that big a selling point? Are there people out there who go to a movie just because its in 3D?

Michael Corvin

Inception says hello.

kenbuzz

I avoid 3D movies/television for one simple reason - the special glasses. Those suckers can turn a flat 2D image into a robust 3D reality. But what they don't tell you is that when your turn your head and glance around your already-3D living room, or look at the other people in that already-3D movie theatre you will see into the 4th Dimension! I've read Flatland, I have no interest in seeing the inside of people's digestive tracts.

And worse yet, do you know what happens if you look directly into the eyes of someone else who is ALSO wearing those special glasses? You'll see this:

RocShemp

Although I like 3D, it's time for it to die. This is why.

maingon

3D is going to die because of its miss use on movies that werent filmed in 3d and gimmicky effects. If used correctly like James Cameron did on Avatar 3D becomes a plus. The main problem with 3d is you still need to wear those glasses. The other problem is the glasses are too small. They are made too look like Sunglasses and stylish so I always find them too small, the viewing angle. You tend to have to look up at the screen you the whole screen fits in your glasses viewing area and you tend to have to always fix the glasses from sliding down your nose.

Solid Snake

I have a big head, at least I think so, but...all your personal issues on the glasses..I've never had. And I wear them on top of my own glasses. No issue. I dunno about stylish. Depends on where you go I guess. At most they look like those nerd glasses..you know what I mean. Thick plastic and big(ish)

Ash Ketchum

Very good. As a big fan of Marilyn McCoo (was she gorgeous on "Solid Gold" or what?), I wouldn't mind seeing her in 3-D. However, I don't know what portion of the readers here are going to get the joke.

PopcornTreeCt

Even Avatar's 3D wasn't that great. I mean if that's the best it could do then get rid of it.

kenbuzz

Marilyn McCoo aside (yeah, she brought teh hawt a couple of decades ago), it seems like moviemakers just slap "3D" on the title and throw some gratuitous crap at the audience that does nothing to advance the plot but is designed solely to take advantage of the "wow" factor. My 9 y/o loves it, but that's about it.


John Candy as Dr. Tongue in Evil 3D House of Pancakes

Full Video:


As someone else's .sig so aptly puts it - if you can't make a movie good, make it 3D.

RoboDad

No one I know goes to a movie "just because it's in 3D". But quite a few will choose the 3d presentation of a movie they already want to see, over the 2D presentation, myself included.

Sub-Zero

Totally agree with you. If Avatar is the measuring stick for the future of 3D cinema, I just don't believe that 3D's future is that bright. While filmmakers like to say that digital 3D is new and different, it is essentially the same thing that failed in the 1950's and the 1980's. The only difference is that it is now digital, and filmmakers simply reinvented the wheel with the current 3D technology, without making anything new, which is what cinemas really need to survive.

TheMadFapper

Another mark against 3-D ALAFAIC is that if 3-d became the "standard for movies, then an entire gnere would be killed off, namely the two people sitting around talking and not doing anything exciting genre, such as My Dinner With Andre, and all that wiould be left would be sci fi and action shit and slapstick comedy.

Travis McClain

My cynical response to this is: "Hasn't this already happened?"

My more hopeful response is: "As long as it's still cheaper to make in 2D, there'll be studios willing to take a gamble that they can turn a profit with that kind of movie."

Hokeyboy

Up up and away...

Marilyn was such a piece...

The Bus

Except the cost of going 3D over 2D is minimal.

Jon2

I just read this article today -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/bu...er=rss&emc=rss

However, what I got from it (and this wasn't the writer's point) was that these filmmakers' statements basically amounted to: "Waa-waa-waaa! I don't like it. 3D is so much harder to do."

Since the same thing could be said about sound, color, and every advance in film making - up to and including CGI - these big name filmmakers sound like a bunch of cry babies who ought to grow up and learn something.

I think it'a bit early to say 3D is dying. Let's revisit this in a year or so.

B5Erik

I have yet to watch a movie in the new 3D system. Why? Cost & comfort. I don't think it's worth the price they charge, and I hate the stupid 3D glasses (plus I wear regular glasses to sharpen my vision when I go see movies or football games, etc, and wearing the 3D glasses over my regular glasses would be a royal pain in the ass - not to mention damaging to my regular glasses as they could get scratched, and that ain't cheap).

I just don't have any interest in 3D at this point, and I do think it's just a gimmick to try and raise prices to generate more money

PopcornTreeCt

3D, like CGI, doesn't enhance storytelling in anyway.

Travis McClain

I'll agree that neither is a substitute for storytelling, but I patently disagree that CGI hasn't enhanced storytelling. The whole reason that comic books have been mined for movies in the last decade is that CGI has finally enabled those stories to be told in a convincing manner. Take away the CGI, and the same story becomes laughable instead of exciting.

Draven

Exactly. Adding sound, color and everything else to movies only made them better. 3-D just makes them darker, out of focus and harder to see.

Travis McClain

Color is debatable. I don't think Casablanca would have been a better film had it been shot in color, but of course Lawrence of Arabia would have been blunted had it been presented in black and white. But by and large, I think storytellers have always found a way to make use of technology that suits their work.

Consider, for a moment, IMAX. We saw some segments of The Dark Knight shot that way. I know fans wish they'd used it more, but I though its sparing application was part of why it was so effective. I don't think we needed to see, for instance, the dinner scene where Bruce Wayne vets Harvey Dent. That technology doesn't suit every story, or even every part of the stories it does suit.

As the economics of scale permits more use of IMAX, I'm sure someone will feel the need to shoot whole movies that way; the cinematographer for the next Batman movie has apparently expressed an interest in doing just that. I think it would detract from the artistic value of using the technology, but I'm not the artist. Maybe someone will have a story to tell that calls for that scale. I certainly wouldn't have minded if David Lean had been able to shoot Lawrence that way...but I don't think it would have improved Casablanca.