I think it’s having a secondary effect that’s a positive one that was unintended by its developers. Once people put the glasses on, they tend to focus on the screen.
This may seem self-evident, and I admit my experience is purely anecdotal, but it appears to be cutting down on the increasing rudeness in movie theaters. The theater wasn’t illuminated with the countless glowing screens of people texting or playing video games (seriously). There’s way less of mindless talking and commentary as if people were in their own living rooms. Even smaller children, from whom at least chattering is understandable because they don’t know any better, are quieter and more involved.
That alone makes the format attractive to me.
PAD
• 
I recall this was my experience at Up as well (which, if you haven’t seen, do; even without the 3-D, it’s a marvelous film).
That probably comes from 3D being “special” at the moment. 3D costs a little more in some places. Anyone who just barely cares is going to see the cheaper version. So this might just be segregating some of the noisy people into a different theater.
Also, there’s some self selection just on the movie buff side. The people who *really* care about the best possible movie selection are more likely to see the fancier version, no matter what the thing is that makes it fancy.
Is the 3-D effect really that good? I honestly have no idea; I’m blind in my left eye so the whole thing is wasted on me. 🙁 Is it really as advertised? I am both curious and a bit jealous. 🙂
Haven’t seen many 3D movies in theaters, but I had the opposite experience — guy came in with his daughter after the previews, when the movie had started. Daughter, it turns out, had lost or misplaced her glasses. So he spent a minute shuffling the snacks and sodas around to balance them, then started patting around on the floor looking for them. Couldn’t find them. Got up, left with his daughter to get another pair of glasses. They got back. She’s lost them again. Again with the noisy searching and talking. It turned into a ten-minute ordeal.
And no, 3D is generally not that big a deal. 3D may be worth it when they start using it, not as a gimmick, but to convey information in ways 2D movies can’t. It annoys me when 3D movies have sequences put in just to showcase the 3D effect, or when physics are ignored for the sake of cool 3D pop-out effects. And, frankly, I often prefer 2D versions. Up was beautiful enough that I was happy to get lost in the 2D and found the 3D added nothing. Of the 3D movies I’ve seen, the otherwise awful My Bloody Valentine was the one that actually made some worthwhile use of the 3D instead of employing it solely as a gimmick or piracy-deterrent.
And no, 3D is generally not that big a deal. 3D may be worth it when they start using it, not as a gimmick, but to convey information in ways 2D movies can’t.
.
Well, in fairness, there’s always a learning curve. Things that are now taken for granted–close-ups, pan shots, intercutting, not to mention everything that first saw light in “Citizen Kane”–were once things that no one thought of doing. 2D has been around for a century and they’re still exploring new techniques, so it may well be years before new directors and creators come up with ways to fully exploit 3D technology. Hëll, once upon a time, sound was looked upon by some as a fad.
.
No reason to dismiss it out of hand just because the full opportunities haven’t been explored yet.
.
PAD
I want to see Citizen Kane in 3D.
The sledding sequence is amazing. It comes right at you.
Citizen Kane in 3D is no good at all. The trick shot with the giant fireplace was completely ruined.
My theater cranked up the heat at that moment so that you FELT like you were actually in the furnace, so I thought that trick shot was pretty good.
“Hëll, once upon a time, sound was looked upon by some as a fad.”
So was colour.
(To be honest, two-strip TechniColor wasn’t all that great, and single-strip colour emulsions were so slow they were almost impossible to use effectively…)
There’s a very significant difference between sound and color vs. 3D.
.
3D effects depend on exaggerating how our eyes work. Our eyes are only 4 inches apart, but they put the cameras several feet apart. That’s why things pop out of the screen, because they’re actually simulating stuff being only a few inches from your face. In real life, things are rarely just a few inches from our faces.
.
Sound and color can both be done in a normal, straightforward way that mimics reality and they’ll still give an experience that is vastly different from silent and black & white movies. So color and sound can be subtle.
.
3D can’t be subtle. If they actually tried to mimic the real world by putting the cameras 4 inches apart, we’d rarely be able to tell that the movie is in 3D at all.
.
That’s the main thing that makes it a gimic. Sound and color make a movie more like reality, while 3D isn’t noticeable unless it’s making a movie look less like reality.
I wonder if that will be true in 5 years when the novelty wears off. For now, I stay focused on the screen for fear of missing something. Subtitles also force one to stare at the screen.
I think the novelty will wear off, but it’s hard to say.
.
Most of the movies coming out in 3D are children’s movies. That means:
.
1) They’re not as likely to get the headaches that adults get. The 3D movies look 3D because they take advantage of the distance between our eyes to make us think we’re looking at something with perspective. However, there are other systems in our eyes that know good and well that the images are all at the same distance away, on that flat screen. That contradictory information tires the brain out and causes some people problems. However, kids are much less susceptible to that. I forget the exact medical reason why, but basically they’re just not as worn out as the rest of us yet.
.
b) The little kids in the audience now are not the little kids who will be in the audiences 5 years from now. So 5 years from now it will still be new to the target audience of 6-8 year olds. Back in the 40s the comic book industry worked this way and published a completely different origin for Wonder Woman’s invisible jet every few years, or just straight up reused a Superman story that had already bee published. You can get away with a lot when your audience is constantly turning over.
In my case, I am good with seeing the newer 3-D without getting a headache. With the old blue lens/red lens, I was only good for about 30 minutes.
I’m with Alan, the new 3-d doesn’t disturb my poor head at all…. but I remember watch an old 3-d 70s pørņø in a movie theatre a few years back and getting the most splitting headache ever. That’s one of the reasons I’ve grown to like the new 3-d, lack of brain pain.
A 3D pørņø? I have trouble imagining that.
.
Pørņøš are legendary for small budgets and shoddy production. Even if they’re not really that bad, I can’t imagine that they had the highest quality engineers working on the 3D setup. I’d think it probably had other problems that would have given people bad headaches no matter what process they used.
True, most 3D films are for children, but not all (at least 4 aimed at older audiences this year), but as a correlative to your 5-years later point, in 5 years, many of today’s children will be teens, and if they have not tired of the format (which remains to be seen), then there will be more films aimed at that demographic.
And I doubt they’ll tire of it, as it’ll just be another normal part of the theatrical experience, and the techniques and technology will continue to evolve.
About to leave to see the “Toy Story” double feature. I have to drive forty miles, down to Alpharetta, t see it.
Grrr.
I have to go that far to see any movie.
It was worth it.
.
One question, though – i noticed a fair bit of strobing (mainly in TS1) on quick-moving objects, and it’s been so long since i last saw it, i can’t recall if that was in the original flat version, or whether it might be an artifact of the 3D conversion.
.
Anyone else have any opinions/info/observations?
So far this yar, I have seen 4 movies in 3-D (5, if you count seeing Coraline twice): Coraline, Monsters vs. Aliens, Up, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.
.
I would recommend Coraline in 3-D, but not the others. Not grading the other movies as good or bad, just didn’t think the 3-D was worth the extra cost in those.
.
I didn’t care for either Toy Story movies, but will probably still see them in 3-D. My left eye is much weaker than my right eye, and I feel watching in 3-D has made my eyes work together better. (When I read, I don’t use my left eye at all.)
Really? Not Ice Age: DOTD? Because I initially took Caroline to see that in 2-D and there were sequences where I thought, “Oh, we have GOT to come back and see this in 3D.” Which we did and it was not a let down.
.
PAD
I’m suspecting many others might like it much more than I did. I think I let my dislike for Ray Romano affect my enjoyment of the movie. Had I been thinking about it when I posted above, I would have mentioned that fact. And it’s really not ‘dislike’ so much as ‘just don’t care’.
.
As to the 3-D, there were a couple scenes that stood out (ha!) for me where it looked like the 3-D effect was just vegetation added to the top of the screen in order to use the 3-D.
.
And I need to stress that my left eye is so weak I might not be getting the full effect of 3-D, especially the subtle differences. Broad differences work well for me, but I really can’t judge how well all 3-D works. Maybe I AM getting the full effect, maybe only 50%.
Hope that’s true, seeing the new Michael Moore film on Friday I had a person next to me who kept texting on his Blackberry, I wanted to take the dámņ thing out of his hands and smash, but I held my anger in.
The new Michael Moore movie is in 3D?
Sorry, I just momentarily panicked at the idea of Micheal Moore coming right at me.
Michael Moore I could deal with. Doctor Manhattan in full frontal 3D, however…
.
PAD
Y’know, Dr. Manhattan in 3-D would probably be disappointing. He’s no dirk Diggler.
And I don’t think even 3-D could make Michael Moore interesting.
The last time I went to the cinema there was this total áššhølë sitting next to me. loading crunching popcorn, drinking cans of red bull and throwing them on the floor. Laughing as loud as he could, guessing what people were going to say next, and being right much of the time.
At one point his phone rang and he answered it.
Still, he was my brother so I couldn’t say much.
I think I was there. I was in the next car over.
.
Seriously, I miss drive-ins. If the movie really sucks, you can just stuff a rag in your exhaust pipe and not have to deal with it.
.
PAD
Well here in Ireland we’ve tried drive-ins in an experimental way. They work fine as long as people can’t bring in tractors.
Drive-ins are an excuse to clean the car, which I usually let rain take care off.
(Off the subject, just picked up the 2003 edition of Knight Life, hilarious stuff).
In West Palm Beach FL we still have an operating drive in movie.I go as often as possible.
PAD wrote: “Michael Moore I could deal with. Doctor Manhattan in full frontal 3D, however…”
They kinda did this on ROBOT CHICKEN. In one segment/sketch, some bank robbers are robbing a bank at gunpoint, with all the hostages sitting down, when a naked Doctor Manhattan floats in and makes the robbers explode. As the hostages are all thanking hin, Doctor Manhattan floats over — and his, er, blurred crotch is right next to one of the sitting hostages.
The only problems I had with seeing a 3-D movie is the extra price and when I saw Pixar’s UP I kept having to take them off because I was crying during the opening montage!
I guess I never really considered that before, but yeah, the movie theater seems a bit more focused for the 3D pictures. Fad or not, the peoples of Saskatchewan are fixated on it when it’s right in front of them (or at least when it appears to be).
3D alone doesn’t justify a movie, but I get tingly just thinking of watching an otherwise good movie (Up, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) and having the added visual effect.
i wonder if in some cases the extra focus isn’t so much because the 3-D’s so good but rather because people are waiting for the effect. monsters vs. Aliens wasn’t jam-packed with 3-D effects but maybe for that very reason people were less inclinced to turn away and chat in case they missed the next 3-D effect.
The new 3-D is okay. Not up to what you can see at Disneyland/Disney’s California Adventure, but Disney’s probably able to incorporate more expensive tech than what your typical theatre allows. I did see My Bloody Valentine shortly after an eye surgery, so in response to above, yes, you can see the effects with one good eye (I’m not sure if having a weak but not blind left eye helped).