3-D or not 3-D. THAT is the question.

3-D or not 3-D. THAT is the question.

Star Wars 1-6 is about to make a theatrical re-release in 3-D.
Every time the subject of 3-D is presented, members here start to comment for or against it!
Do you like it or despise it?

Editorial Opinion
By headlopper - Feb 08, 2012 01:02 PM EST
Filed Under: Other



The history of 3-D in a feature film has been around since the early 1920's.
Since that time it has had periods of ebb and flow in popularity, but never anything tread-setting.
It has always been a novelty film format for the most part, and serious film makers choose to use standard 2-D filming for their projects.

With the introduction of IMAX and theme park video-based attractions in the 80's, 3-D found a new audience.

However 3-D in it's present form of popularity was founded upon using digital camera technology rather than tradition film, which began during the early 2000's.

Since then , with the freedom of digital, 3-D movies can be easily made with the right camera equipment.
Hence the inundation of 3-D movies lately.

The question is: is 3-D really necessary?

Name one GREAT film made in 3-D. Go ahead. Go back to the silent era if you want. I challenge anyone to do so because there isn't any.
Some might be good, or even great...but are they 'Casablanca', 'The Godfather', 'Citizen Kane', 'Ben Hur', 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Dances with Wolves', 'Titanic' and most importantly 'Star Wars:A New Hope'? Here are just a few films mentioned. I'm sure you guy's can add 100 more!

Whether you enjoy the 3-D experience or not is a personal preference in my opinion, but is it necessary to create a truly epic film?

HELL. NO.

It may be fun and a curiosity to witness how it alters a two dimensional medium to SEEM three dimensional for brief moments during the movie, but other than that, I think it's a total and utter distraction.

Clearly , an industry which is paranoid about waning ticket sales thinks it can capitalize on a technology ,through spurious promotional hype, to charge on average an additional 4-6 dollars per ticket for the 'privilege' of goggling at 3-D 'magic'.

There ARE health risks as well. Headaches, nausea and dizziness are common ill effects, though honestly the exception in general.
Moreover ,people who suffer from strabismus( un-straight eyes) CAN'T EVEN WATCH 3-D!

There was a time when you had to drive a couple extra miles to a theater to see a 3-D movie, now you have to drive a couple extra miles to one that's NOT showing the film you want to see in 3-D!

True story; I'm THAT guy!

SAG-AFTRA Slams Creation Of AI Actress Tilly Norwood: It Has No Life Experience To Draw From
Related:

SAG-AFTRA Slams Creation Of AI "Actress" Tilly Norwood: "It Has No Life Experience To Draw From"
MAN OF TOMORROW: Brainiac Has Been Confirmed As The Villain Of James Gunn's SUPERMAN Follow-Up
Recommended For You:

MAN OF TOMORROW: Brainiac Has Been Confirmed As The Villain Of James Gunn's SUPERMAN Follow-Up

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
Stumblin
Stumblin - 2/8/2012, 2:17 PM
I hate the 3D gimmick myself, I wear glasses so the idea wearing two pairs of glasses blows. Sure you can say, "Wear contacts then!" Except I have astigmatism and to get contacts for that is a shit ton of money just so I can watch some 3D b.s.

Luckily, my theaters shows IMAX, 3D, and digital projection, so I always have a choice :)
marvel72
marvel72 - 2/8/2012, 2:19 PM
i'm only gonna watch the amazing spider-man & maybe the hobbit this year in 3d.
Supes17
Supes17 - 2/8/2012, 2:48 PM
not 3D
Supes17
Supes17 - 2/8/2012, 2:48 PM
well, maybe spider-man.
headlopper
headlopper - 2/8/2012, 3:11 PM
^^^me too brother ...me too.

BTW, I'm a 'HH' man myself! LOL!
95
95 - 2/8/2012, 3:34 PM
Um... Really want to hear my opinion?

Don't blame the tech!

Blame the directors & cinematographers!

I'm really starting to feel hated around CBM :(
headlopper
headlopper - 2/8/2012, 3:38 PM
@3D - Hugs all around bro!
Don't stress it!
calin88
calin88 - 2/8/2012, 3:53 PM
not 3D!!Ever, if I had both choices i will always go for classic, 3D is horibble and too dark
95
95 - 2/8/2012, 4:24 PM
@headlopper

LOL, Thanks.

I'm not a fan of all things 3D, I get pissed off when it brings nothing extra to a movie. But I'm optimistic that one filmmaker will get it. And when they do, it will be EPIC.

@Gaston

I disagree. I actually prefer filmmakers to post-convert, as of recently. You can't shoot with a beamsplitter rig as you would a standard camera. There is a lot of adjusting of stereospace depth to make 3D a part of the texture of the film. James Cameron and Peter Jackson seem to understand that, after all James Cameron understands it better than anybody else. I gave Joss Whedon hell for post-converting but I've settled that he feels more comfortable filming normally. Leave it to the professionals (post-converters?) to craft the depth and texture of a 3D film.
95
95 - 2/8/2012, 7:06 PM
@Gaston

True. But The Avengers has yet to arrive in theaters ;) And this week, I'll solidify my opinion with Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace - 3D. George Lucas followed the James Cameron golden standard for conversions, an 18-month process. Plus the early word on Titanic 3D has been pretty good. I'm sure a film this year will change your mind. Hopefully. (betting it's going to be The Avengers).

@ironman53

*fist bump*
Respect.
JDUKE25
JDUKE25 - 2/9/2012, 5:52 AM
The Amazing Spider-man I'm definitely seeing in 3D. Probably gonna check out Episode I and see how that is, but I sure won't be seeing Episode II in 3D.
jessepostal
jessepostal - 2/9/2012, 6:01 AM
I love 3d, the "gimmick" is great, who doesn't love movies that come out of the screen at you. A lot of movies now don't use 3d for that though, now it's all about depth. I have a 3d tv and a lot of 3d blurays. I think it was well worth the money, IMAX under the sea might be the clearest picture you have ever seen, and there are some good looking post converted 3d movies, priest,The smurfs, a lot of Disney releases and so on. Obviously it's working or they wouldn't still be doing it. Look at all the movies there re releasing in post 3d, all the star wars movies, titanc, and five more Disney movies. You may be the minority by not liking 3d. There hasn't been a great movie in 3d because there hasn't been many great movies these days,you can't blame it on the 3d. The 3d isn't gonna make u want to see a movie u don't want to see. Avatar was in 3d and it smashed how many records? I personally don't like the movie but it has a huge following. I don't see a lot of the problems people have with 3d, it's to dark? I wear glasses and they don't fit right? Your obviously wearing a shitty pair of 3d glasses. Find a pair thats comfy for you, they only make a thousand diff styles and sizes.
Stumblin
Stumblin - 2/9/2012, 11:11 AM
jessepostal, I wear the 3D glasses they give you at the theater. Last movie I saw in 3D was Avatar, I honestly enjoyed the movie more in 2D when I saw on CineMax at home. That's not saying it was a great movie, but I digress.

I'm not spending $30 for special 3D glasses to fit over my prescription glasses for the possible one movie every couple years, it's not worth it, nor is the 3D. I find it distracting, annoying, and fatigues my eyes. Even in Avatar I had to leave the theater for a minute because my eyes were hurting.

3D is not for everyone, and it will never take the place of 2D. So I don't have to get used to it, because we will always have a choice.
jessepostal
jessepostal - 2/9/2012, 11:29 AM
@stumblin, try a dollar on amazon, and nowhere did i say you had to see movies in 3d or even that you had to like it,all i said was dont hate on it if your not trying it to its potential,of course theaters are gonna give you shitty glasses cuz there paying for them up front, there not gonna give you the works just like any other business. 3d is not for everyone, but dont hate on it if you haven't experienced it the way it's supposed to be, hate your theater not the 3d.
headlopper
headlopper - 2/9/2012, 11:29 AM
@Stumblin - That's my fear. That eventually people like me and you WON'T have a choice. Theaters are starting to show only the 3-D version even though there is ALSO a 2-D version offered. I had to drive an extra 15 minutes to see "Immortals" in 2-D, AAAAND there was only ONE show time per day!
jessepostal
jessepostal - 2/9/2012, 11:37 AM
haha they even make clip on's for your glasses! thats awesome.

@headlopper i feel bad, you guys must have some shitty theaters if they don't offer both
Stumblin
Stumblin - 2/9/2012, 11:55 AM
"nowhere did i say you had to see movies in 3d or even that you had to like it,all i said was dont hate on it if your not trying it to its potential" jessepostal, relax, I never even insinuated what you just stated, so I don't know why you even said that. I was just voicing my personal opinion on 3D.

I've seen it in many forms, from rides like the Spider-Man ride at Universal (which was awesome) I don't think it'll ever fit for anything that takes an extended amount of time, like movies and video games. So I will continues to hate on it, because I do in fact hate it, for cinemas at least.
Stumblin
Stumblin - 2/9/2012, 11:58 AM
headlopper, nah, 3D can't ever take over for the very reasons you stated in your article. Headaches, nausea, seizures, color blind, crossed eyed, hell think how it would be for a deaf person to try to read subtitles on a 3D screen! Bet that'd be a lot of fun.
Stumblin
Stumblin - 2/9/2012, 11:59 AM
Oh and jessepostal, why hate the theater? I was watching it IMAX 3D, best possible picture and sound and I still didn't really enjoy it.
headlopper
headlopper - 2/9/2012, 12:02 PM
That's the trend @jess. T
Theater's make more money charging for 3-D showings.
There are 3 theaters in my area with 16 or more screens, so it's not a lack of screens unfortunately. Really no excuse for it. Greed perhaps?
headlopper
headlopper - 2/9/2012, 12:08 PM
@Stumblin - It's ironic you should say that.
One of my best friends is deaf, really!
We go to see flicks together (I speak sign language)along with friends/family.

And he can't watch 3-D! So we gotta find the closest theater showing the 2-D version.

Good point!
headlopper
headlopper - 2/9/2012, 12:31 PM
BTW, it's distracting as hell when he elbows me to sign for him during the movie when he missed something...but what are friends for LOL!
jessepostal
jessepostal - 2/9/2012, 12:32 PM
@stumblin, i know i read one of your comments wrong,my bad bud,everyone's got there own opinion on it, i for one wear contacts with astigmatism as well and it doesn't bother me,so i guess we are complete opposites as i enjoy the 3d experience.Also Subtitles in 3d look the same as regular subtitles,there made for the 3d experience.Hate all you want but i think its here to stay for awhile.But just because i like it doesn't mean they shouldn't also offer the 2d version as well.

@headlopper def greed,everything is based on greed these days,that and i think the majority of movie goers are teens and young adults which are more likely to want to see the 3d. Cater to the people spending money and f everyone else is in the constitution isn't it?
Stumblin
Stumblin - 2/9/2012, 1:17 PM
It's all good man, not like you can tell the tone of my voice through text anyway ha! I know I can get those contacts but man are they expensive! I mostly would like those just so I could wear sun glasses so I'm not constantly blinded by the light...revved up like a deuce...
95
95 - 2/9/2012, 2:45 PM
Roger Ebert said in one of his blog post that 3D film profit makes up for 40%, whereas 2D reigns supreme with the other 60%. 3D won't replace 2D. 3D is simply an artistic choice like miniatures or CGI rendered exterior shots is a choice. I hope in the future, films, 3D or 2D cost the same and are shown on the same screens with ability to adjust the stereospace at your liking as a Nintendo 3DS does. From no-stereospace (2D) to slightly heightened depth to exaggerated. 2D films will be around as long as writing on paper will be.
jessepostal
jessepostal - 2/9/2012, 4:57 PM
@stumblin, there def going down in price, i get three pair or six lenses for thirty some bucks,that's without insurance,but both my eyes are the same number so i can get away with one box to share for both eyes. haha i hate that song, and i still haven't figured out what the hell he's even talking about, if you know please fill me in.

@3d are those percentages counting only the movies that have 3d versions or all movies in general? Roger Ebert is kind of a dumbass
95
95 - 2/9/2012, 9:00 PM
@jessepostal

Whoa whoa there. I agree with Ebert on a creative level, I'm not sure about him on a business level though. Id say he's referring to film with 3D versions rather than all movies in general. Obviously 3D films are only a small percentage of all the films coming out. I sense great anger in you.
jessepostal
jessepostal - 2/10/2012, 6:55 AM
haha sorry bud its been a rough work week,thank god its Friday, and every time id get to the end of writing my paragraph my ipad would close out my browser and not save what i was writing so i was getting a little more annoyed. I just don't understand how a man can get paid that much money for his opinions on movies,movies are entertainment, or educational among other things, i feel bad for what he is going through now but only in America can one man make a million dollars off his opinion.
ps there doing a lot of crazy things with 3d now like two people watching one screen and seeing completely different things. that's pretty cool if you ask me. so maybe your idea isn't far off.
kriswone
kriswone - 2/10/2012, 11:00 AM
Now I know why we can't see EYE to EYE, strabismus!

What are you lookin' at?
headlopper
headlopper - 2/10/2012, 11:45 AM
@kriswone- LOL! Very good! That was funny.
95
95 - 2/10/2012, 7:52 PM
Star Wars 3D conversion was stupid.

You guys were definitely right, conversions are absolutely no good.

But I bring good news!

@JoshWilding wasn't kidding when he said TASM's 3D was better than Avatar's.

Film in 3D or go home.
95
95 - 2/11/2012, 8:59 AM
@Gaston

Yeah. Sorry. I thought Alice in Wonderland and Captain America was converted well(?). Too bad The Avengers and Star Trek 2 are being converted. Lastly, I'd like to say that XPAND is the best cinema 3D system, based off all my experiences.
Wolverine19742
Wolverine19742 - 2/11/2012, 11:21 AM
If you stop to think about it, yes, 3D has been around for awhile. however, they tried to do this with movies back in the 80's and it FAILED big time. I'm sorry I say no! I don't want to sit around for over an hour or more with glasses on giving myself a headache just for a few cool FX shoots when the rest of the movie is done in 2d.
headlopper
headlopper - 2/11/2012, 6:43 PM
@Wolverine19742 - Good point.^^^
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder