I’m rewatching Final Destination.
And it dawned on me that all of the shots were choreographed for 3D animation.
I remember disliking 3D movies whenever we had those red and blue lens glasses.
And whenever the movie industry switched over to the new clear 3D glasses. I still didn’t see the point in 3D movies. I watch them and then threw away the glasses at the end of the movie. The experience sucked, just like always.
So I’m curious.
Did anybody actually want 3D movies? Or was this something that the movie industry was just trying to shove down our throats?
I think certain movies are 3D worthy. Like I would I loved to watch Interstellar or Gravity in 3D. When full immersion is something that adds value.
I find that most movies aren’t worthy of it.
deleted by creator
Personally love 3d movies. Obv many are built around the 3d and that can feel gimmicky, but many like the marvel ones just add an extra element of depth which is nice.
Used vr headsets for 3d, and have had a series of protectors that do 3d for it. Thought it was dying out, but newer 4k projectors keep adding the feature.
But I agree the general public opinion is it’s not worth it, so the studios will follow the money. If people vote with their wallets I’ll just have to accept the limited library I have so far.
They were a fun novelty when it was only theme parks doing it, because the theatre experience was tailored to that one movie and they could bring practical effects into the show.
In a standard movie theater there wasn’t much point and I watched potc 4 without the glasses because it genuinely looked better than with the glasses on.
That’s bonkers, how was watching it with a double image better than with the glasses?
Yeah ive always loved 3D effects, and never understand what folks have against it.
It’s definitely the tech getting in the way of the experience. There’s comments to be made about the gimmicky nature of content made for 3d but if it really took off you’d eventually see stand out art and ultimately it would become so standard and expected that even for a film not taking particular advantage it’d probably be there, literally, adding another dimension to the experience of the film. The problem is, in all it’s history we just haven’t figured out a way that isn’t clunky and irritating on the viewing side. A pair of plastic glasses may seem a pretty minor inconvenience but people balk at that type of thing and only have the desire and patience for it during brief spikes where it re-emerges as a fad.
It also, from memory suffers from making the films seem darker, the glasses are prone to being lost, or scratched. To make them comfortable you’d really have to make them as good as actual glasses, which are expensive. It’s also problematic from a theatrical perspective because a session has to be 3d only, you can’t have people in the same session watching it without glasses, the screening is unwatchable without them so you have to tie up 2 screens with a 3d and 2d version. I think I recall hearing about advances the last time this fad was big, where they finally didn’t need glasses, but it resulted in narrow viewing angle requirements.
If you’re picking up a theme here, it’s that all the complaints are about the practicalities of the tech, not necessarily the entertainment value of 3d itself. The trouble comes when that entertainment, while fun, isn’t worth it.
I dont think its the glasses, I remember plenty of people hating on the 3DS’s use of 3D.
