DVDs & Films Forum - Cinema goers call 3D a `gimmick` - Page 1

Only if you've 20/20 vision. I haven't, so only get a partial effect from 3D, and depending on how thick they lay it on. Captain america was a recent highlight for me, but Harry potter, as good as the film was, wasn't enhanced by 3D at all (apart from a depth of field effect in the very last scene).

It IS a gimmick, and an expensive one. Unless you're going to really put the effort in (Avatar), then it's just an excuse to try to squeeze more money out of mediocre movies (Pirahna, Shark Night et al), and for the cinemas to get another £1.50 per punter

============================


Writer's Release
My Collection

I think if cinemas actually had the same number of showings of a film in 2D and 3D then they'd show that the majority of people don't give a **** about it.

I went to see Thor when it opened (good film, not any better with 3D whatsoever) they had about 8 3D showings during the day/night but only one 2D one at 5.30 so we were forced into watching the 3D version and I'll bet many other people are in the same situation, it certainly ****es me off spending even more on top of the already extortionate prices for 2 hours entertainment.

It can be great when used well (Avatar) but the rest of the time it's a cheap gimmick and seems to be getting added to more and more mediocre films. I wouldn't be sad if no more 3D films came out at the cinema, I think it's run its course already.

However I haven't yet played any games on a 3D TV which as an avid gamer I definitely am much more interested in (when they can do it with no glasses). But whether I'd feel the same enthusiasm after playing several games that way I don't know.

After seeing Avatar in 3D but not bothering with any other film (due to the points raised above re. 3D as an afterthought), my view is that I don't necessarilly mind 3D as an event thing that I might do a couple of times a year or maybe even a month (the latter might be pushing it...).

What I cannot bear is having to watch absolutely everything in 3D, quite happy with both SD and HD pictures in 2D, thank you.

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

I think the above point is a very good one and something I always query when I read these '3D is outperforming 2D' posts. All of these studios claiming that 3D is successful because it outperformed conventional screenings are fudging the figures. Some films aren't even available in good old '2D' now (Fright Night was one, so it remained unseen) and the 3D version of others are often pushed ahead of the standard viewing experience because they believe they can charge more. If you have three screens showing Harry Potter in 3D all day, but only one screen showing 2D at limited times, of course more people are going to see it in 3D - they don't have a choice.

However, consumers are as much to blame for this as anyone. If more people refused to pay the ridiculous 3D uplift charge they would have to drop it. What's next, paying an additional fee to watch a scope film? If content makers insist on making 3D films they shouldn't expect consumers to pay a premium for their creative decisions. I refuse to pay the uplift. So far I think I've missed out on three films that I wanted to see, two of which turned out to be fairly crap when I eventually saw them on BD, and the other isn't available yet. Tellingly the 3D version was gone from the cinema within a week. It is a gimmick that's being used to obfuscate the paper-thin plots and laughable acting so common in today's disposable cinema. Perhaps studios should stop churning out countless average films and instead concentrate on delivering a smaller number of quality features. I mean honestly, can anyone imagine the development meeting that green-lit Shark Night? Just who thought that was a good idea?

Bloody Emperor's new clothes.

Speaking as someone who has a 3D TV at home I can wholeheartedly agree that it is a gimmick.
I didn't buy the TV for the 3D functionality, I bought it for it's 2D capabilities (and because it's a 40" screen with a thin bezel that fits perfectly in a space I had for it )

Having had it for approximately 9 months I can count on one hand the number of times I've tested the 3D (I say tested, because I've never properly used it).
I tried it with the PS3 version of CoD Black Ops, and it was so slow it's ridiculous.
I watched a bit of the Wimbledon finals, broadcast by the BBC HD channel and was fairly impressed, but couldn't stand more than 10 minutes since it gave me headaches.
I tried out a few minutes of The Polar Express and wasn't impressed at all.

So, as others have already mentioned, I too think I'll be sticking to 2D (preferably 1080p) viewings.

Somebody made the point in the latest Total Film that movies showing in 2D and 3D are blocking screens for other (and better) movies.  I'm so far disinclined towards 3D, although I'll admit my exposure to "proper" 3D is minimal - I haven't seen any 3D movies at the pictures, and to date I've only seen a few seconds of "Bolt" the last time I was in Tesco's.  I could be sold on 3D if I had further and better exposure to it, I suppose, but there seems to be little content available that gets me excited.

J Mark Oates
--------------------
I'm Sure I Had Them On When I Came In Here.
sprockethole.myreviewer.com

Until it becomes holographic 3D as per Jaws 19 in BTTF 2 none of us will be happy

Jimbo : oÞ

"There's that word again... is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull in the future?"

I'm waiting till I can convert the attic into a Holodeck

Snaps

Every Third Car
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I used to be with it, but then they changed what 'it' was.
Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's 'it' seems weird and scary