3D films

[peep]

So the big movie discussion this year has to be the massive boom in films being released in 3D.

I have seen a stupid amount of films in 3D over the years and absolutely love the new technology used. It now feels more like you are in the film, almost. Most peeps see 3D as a way of films to throw things at the audience but not all films are like that. If anything the ones where they blatantly chuck rubbish at the audience seems dull and too gimmicky whereas films like Nightmare Before Christmas and Bolt just made it feel more, umm, I suppose realistic (despite them being animations).

I know some films don't work as 3D but with some that extra dimension makes the film so much better. There is a huge list of films being turned into 3D (Star Wars saga for example) and films being released straight away as a 3D film is really long for this year. I'm particularly looking forward to Disney.Pixar's Up later this year.

Do you see 3D as a gimmick so movie studios can make more money (not like you can wait for it to be released on DVD/blu-ray lol) or do you see it as an improvement on the movie experience?

 

[furie]

I find wearing the glasses uncomfortable for an entire film (both physically, and eye strain).

So I will avoid them.

In previous experience I've always found that the 3D gimmic is designed to make up for the absolutely trash film. Journey to the Centre of the Earth definitely. I hate fims made specifically for 3-D, where you can see the shots designed just for the "3D Experience".

I'm not sure how much more enhanced a traditional film would be, how much extra it would bring to the experience? I'd have to see one, but due to the physical issue above, I'm going to struggle (temped by Star Wars though, if only to see it at the Cinema AGAIN!)

 

[marc]

I tend to feel sick watching them tbh. Unless your eyes are perfect I just dont think they work that well.

 

[Lain]

I saw My Bloody Valentine in 3D, and it was really awesome. It totally added to the experience, and I can't imagine what it would've been like without it.

It is a gimmick, yes, but it's still the awesomez.

 

[peep]

Marc and Furie, did you watch 3D films with the new RealD glasses (black rimmed, look like something Tim Burton would wear) or the horrible old-style red and blue lensed glasses?

The old style gave me headaches and is the main reason they stopped making 3D films back in the 80s. The new glasses seem to get rid of any annoyance. Occasionally they can rub a bit too much on the top of the ears but even my friends who wear glasses/contact lenses say that this new version works fine over the top of their normal glasses.

 

[furie]

The ones I've used (within the last ten years LOL) are the big ones which use the polarised lenses. I have very flat ears, so glasses have to be just right or they really hurt the sides of my head/back of my ears.

 

[Homer]

I saw Beowulf, and not even 3D and Angelina Jolie could save that piece of trash.

I'm indifferent about 3D.

 

[ciallkennett]

3D films just don't work for me. The last 3D film I saw was Spy Kids ages ago, and I loved it but thought the effect were pointless.

I watched Beowulf in normal and thought it was good.

I'm not going to jump on the 3D bandwagon because I don't see the point.

 

[Ollie]

The only recent film I saw in 3D was Bolt. The first thing I noticed was that they charged you loads more to see the film just because it was in 3D and they give you the glasses. In my cinema it's £5 to see a film. Whereas when we saw Bolt at the cinema with my dad they charged us £10.50 a ticket which was ****ing ridiculous.
The 3D effects weren't even that great. I was expecting something like Pirates at Thorpe where stuff comes right out, but they only came out a couple of feet at most and it didn't really feel any different to any other film.
So I think it's just to encourage more people to the cinema and an excuse to charge people more to see films.

 

[Hixee]

I think 3D films are a gimmick. I do like them, but they should be used sparingly. It could be possible to ruin the novelty if every film is shown in 3D.

As for the "it was **** because stuff didn't fly out at me" point then you need to watch the film again and look at the depth of the picture.

It's not all about stuff coming out at you, it's also about the depth. The pictures move and flow more realistically on the 3D screen. Don't forget that Bolt was also designed to be shown on normal screen. They just focus on making the depth of the picture better, not making new shots where the characters fly over your head.

I've seen on film in 3D, The Polar Express, which was fantastic. I've also watched the two 3D films at NASA. I was stunned by The Polar Express mainly because it was just so impressive and awesome. The NASA films (on the ISS and something else) were incredible because they were just so massive. They really utilized the depth. They did also have plenty of the "in your face" stuff, and that was great too. I guess because they were rendering the footage for the 3D cinema they could make the effects so much better.

Anyway, I think 3D films should be used in moderation. I don't want the novelty to wear off. Oh, and I think they are a tad too expensive, but then again, I can't imagine it's cheap to produce so...

 

[Ollie]

Yeah, the Polar Express 3D was excellent. It was a great film and all the effect flew out the screen into your comfort zone which I loved. Like near the start when the train pulls in and the train came out of the screen and stopped literally inches from your nose. That was fantastic.
But I don't like it when it's just used to add depth and stuff. It's nothing new and major and is definitely not worth the ticket prices.

 

[Snoo]

Not a fan. It's really a waste of an experience tbh.. I just wanna watch a movie.

 

[Sara]

The only recent film I saw in 3D was Bolt. The first thing I noticed was that they charged you loads more to see the film just because it was in 3D and they give you the glasses. In my cinema it's £5 to see a film. Whereas when we saw Bolt at the cinema with my dad they charged us £10.50 a ticket which was <img> ridiculous.
The 3D effects weren't even that great. I was expecting something like Pirates at Thorpe where stuff comes right out, but they only came out a couple of feet at most and it didn't really feel any different to any other film.

The thing about Bolt, though, was that the film wasn't specifically made to be shown in 3D. It's a bog standard pixar animation, it wasn't meant to be in 3D. Some smartalec came up with the idea to show it in 3D as an afterthought, so you only get one or two bits that actually use it, the rest of it is just flat watched through irritating glasses.

If they actually make films to be 3D - like I think Coraline might be? - then it's probably going to be a much better experience.

 

[marc]

Peep I am ok in theme parks its just at home I feel sick watching them tbh.

Spy Kids I was ok with, but Jaws 3 and some others I have not been.

 

[bob_3_]

I saw Bolt in 3D. It was the same price as normal and it was quite cool.

Although the glasses made the screen darker. It ain't extra special though.

 

[peep]

The thing about Bolt, though, was that the film wasn't specifically made to be shown in 3D. It's a bog standard Disney animation, it wasn't meant to be in 3D.

Corrected - Yeah, Coraline was filmed in 3D


Btw Marc, at home, umm, that means you used headache-inducing red/blue lensed glasses. I'm talking about at the cinema where they use proper 3D lenses.

I do agree that they darken the image a bit but I found after a little while that you don't notice it that much.

I agree its quite a price difference, at the cinema I usually go to an average ticket is £8 whereas 3D is £13.

I also concur that not all films should be released in 3D. I think it should only be films which make the most of the technology.

 

[Steven]

Polarized glasses are a great idea. So is digital film clearer smoother and more cinematic. I don't pay extra as I have a Ciniworld unlimited card . So I am all for the 'new' style 3d films.