Topic: Has 3D Ruined cinema?

[Senor Slice, Master Baker]

In my opinion; yes! yes it has.

Over the past few years cinemas have started showing 3D films as standard, personally i tihnk it detracts from the overall experience and some people can't even view 3D.

At least one film i've seen has seemed to sacrifice plot in the place of a shorter cheaper film with effects to shock just for the sake of being 3D. (Although it could be argued that it would have done so anyway- 'The final Destination')

I find it disappointing that just because a film is 3D it is assumed to be better. Every film trailer now goes on about how the film is in fantastic 3D. Apart from increasing the cost of a trip to the flicks, i think 3D cinema is by and large bringing the film industry to a new low. How long is it before actually every film is in 3D, and we have no choice.

i'd like to know other's thoughts and feelings on the matter.

-Cakes


EDIT:I'd Like to add here, i thought avatar was okay, but by far not the "masterpiece" it was billed as

[Jakinder]

I love "2D" movies. They are so much more entertaining.
As for 3D,I find my eyes hurt from:

A) Really annoying effects

To be frank, they kind of make my head hurt.

B) A lack of a good story

Now, I do realize that people may disagree with me, but I hated Avatar. Sure it was pretty and all, but that is not the point of a movie.
The point of a movie is to tell us a genuinely good story, and that wasn't. It seems like James Cameron whipped out the story in a day and then focused on the effects for the next however many years it took him to make it. Before this turns into an Avatar hating/counter-hating thread, I should stop my rant.

I would like it a lot better if the focus was not the 3D. Just that the 3D was there as a bonus.

I really do hope that they continue making movies with the non-3D option, and that it does not become a standard.

[Rasmus]

There are three kinds of 3d-movies

1. The Final Destination - made specifically for the 3D it boasts elaborate Z-dimension-effects and quite fun to watch. Rubbing on DVD, and not great movies generally.
2. A Christmas carol - Overall this movie was made for 2D but has some specific sequences designed specifically for 3D. Makes for a fun little change, but does not add/detract much either way.
3. Avatar - which just has the 3D stuff on, and the movie looks very much the same in 2D and 3D.

Type 1 is fun, but a fad. They are likely to go away.

Type 2 and 3 will be around a bit longer, but unless home technology for this pops up inexpensively and soon, it will pass.

[Chaplain Warlight]

NO, it most assuredly has not ruined the cinema. 

Yes, it is a fad, and yes it will become the standard down the road. 

However, just because the 3d movies you have seen are bad, does not make all movies bad.

If ALL movies suck right now in your opinion, then the problem is this:

Your Opinion ruined cinema, for you, likely all you need to do is stop seeing movies in 3D.

[Senor Slice, Master Baker]

NO, it most assuredly has not ruined the cinema. 

Yes, it is a fad, and yes it will become the standard down the road. 

However, just because the 3d movies you have seen are bad, does not make all movies bad.

If ALL movies suck right now in your opinion, then the problem is this:

Your Opinion ruined cinema, for you, likely all you need to do is stop seeing movies in 3D.

But right now almost all movies released are in 3D, All animated movies are as are action movies.
I could see the 2D versions but like i said and Rasmus highlighted; the stories are being sacrificed in favour of in your face effects.

-cakes

[NewHeretic]

I haven't watched a movie in 3D for a long time for two reasons:
  1)  The paper glasses really detract from my enjoyment of the movie; and
  2)  Movies in 3D cost more than those in 2D.

I saw Avatar in 2D and can't imagine what I might have missed by not seeing it in 3D.

What really irritates me is when they re-release old movies in 3D.  No changes to the movie itself, except that it is now in 3D.  That's a money-making scam that is a complete waste of time.  Didn't they do that with Toy Story lately?  And the new Shrek is in 3D?   Why?  That really just seems like they're doing it as a fad.

NewHeretic

[slinky1984]

Well there doing that fad because they need something that they can convince people to pay more money than they should for it. They can't do that with blu-ray's because someone has already debunked that debacle and HD TV's aren't so new anymore so there going to just continue to go down in price I mean considering the first one I bought was $1200 compared to the one I bought more recently that was leaps and bounds more advanced than the first for $800 not on sale name brand.

3-D hasn't ruined cinema but it's not worth the money to go to the theaters in my opinion. not to sound old cause I'm not but I remember around high school I could fill my gas tank and take my girlfriend to the movies and have popcorn and soda for $20, now a family of four can't go see a 3-D movie for less than $60 bucks and that doesn't even include snacks, that's friggin ridiculous.  So nothing about the movie is ruined per say but the price gouging for something that actually isn't even a new technology is ruining it.

[Chaplain Warlight]

But movies aren't sacrificing anything just to be done in 3D.  Simply bad movies are being done in 3D.

Its easy to make a animate movie 3D, so they aren't cutting things out to do it in 3D, the base movie was just lacking.

MOST movies are still not in 3D. 3D is still just on the fringe. 

Some movies had a lame attempt made at making them 3d in post production, so the movie sucked before it was 3D. (Clash of the Titans).

Avatar, which I liked, was 3D from the beginning, the story was simple, and it was ment to be just an amazing 3D esperiance. 

But only curtain kinds of movies will be good in 3D.  The only foreseeable one will be Tron 2.0.  But Trons art style and setting make sense in 3d.

[Jakinder]

There is a reason why only bad movies are in 3D.
They assume that tacking something as insignificant to the overall quality of the movie as 3D will make them more money, and it is true.
Now, the only way I see a movie in 3D truly being enjoying is where the 3D actually plays a part in the story. As in it helps the story move along, and isn't there for the heck of it.

The price of 3D movies ludicrous, of course. I find it hard to go to the theatres now. I hope 3D will never invade my home...

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

The price for 3d is insane?  I don't know about you guys but the price of a regular admission for the best theatre in town here is $11 and the cost for 3d is $13.  2 dollars isn't that big of a deal for me to watch something fancy.

[legionnaire]

The price for 3d is insane?  I don't know about you guys but the price of a regular admission for the best theatre in town here is $11 and the cost for 3d is $13.  2 dollars isn't that big of a deal for me to watch something fancy.

Wow i want to go there sometime. Prices in my area are a little crazy right now for movies i mean i don't really like throwing out $15 dollars on a 3d movie that i know i won't enjoy.

I mean if we really want to look at how 3d is just a fad look at the new clash of the titians and how the went back and decided to throw 3d into it. For the most part the only movies that are going 3d are ones the have special effects left and right and animated movies. I don't have a problem with 3d i mean it comes out every 8 or 9 years stays for a few then leaves. I mean it happen in the 90's and the only thing that has gotten better are the glasses.

[Tyranid_Wannabe]

You can still see movies in 2D, must cinemas show both the 3D and 2D version of the film.

Also it can actually help you pick out the more rubbish movies, which only use 3D as a selling point of their rather ordinary movie. Clash of the titans was one, they added the 3d effects after avatar came out. Tells you they were desperate to try and milk every cent of the 3D phenomenon that they could.

[Hymirl]

At least one film i've seen has seemed to sacrifice plot in the place of a shorter cheaper film with effects to shock just for the sake of being 3D. (Although it could be argued that it would have done so anyway- 'The final Destination')

In fairness thats par the course for a final desination movie... they're all like that. I quite enjoyed seeing it in 3D, its all about people dying in horrible squeamish ways so 3D works for that. I wouldn't bother buying the DVD though.

I don't think that 3D and story are linked, at the end of the day its a presentation media. Its like saying DVDs have worse stories than VHS...

There are traditional 2D movies like the Toy Story that have been converted to 3D because Pixar saved the CGI files and you can simply re-render it with a second viewpoint.... I defy anyone to tell me that the story, the humour and the excellent character interplay have been taken out of those movies by their conversion to 3D.

Overall I quite like it, but don't think its a big deal either way. I'd throw the extra pound in for a 3D version if the option is there though. I'll be more excited when they invent holodecks, ask me again then.

[Mr.Peanut]

The films released in 3D are in the minority by a vast margin and the price paid to see them is only slightly higher.  The price of any movie theater ticket is very high unless seen as a matinee or at a "movie plaza/cheap movies" (in the United States, the type of theater that used to sell tickets for $1.00, showing films that were no longer new releases).

3D does nothing to degrade the quality of a movie, what matters is whether or not it is a quality movie (which means a quality plot, performances, sound editing, and the whole ball of wax).  It must be said that Pride and Prejudice benefits very little from 3D while Avatar is slightly more immersive, but a movie like Jason in Space will be awful even if its in 3D while a movie like American Beauty will be great regardless of its format.

The truth is that colorized 2D is the current technology that's widely available.  At some point advancements in screens, filming, or both will be made that will relegate today's movies to the same bin as the silent films of the 1920's.  Maybe holographic vapor screens will become the norm, or headgear, or visuals beamed directly into the brain.  Regardless, this is a natural and wholesome progression of the art of film and does not change the fact that the greatest films of the silent era (think Metropolis) will still be better than the cheapest drivel of the 3D era. 

My Bloody Valentine 3D will never have the lasting effect of Deliverance, so replace your monocle.

[Cpt. Banjo]

It seems that the cinema has a new fad every 20 years or so. 3d is the current flavour of the day but there have been others.

In the 50s, I believed they tried something called panorvision. It was a /really/ widescreen film. They used three cameras to film and another three projectors in the cinema to get the wide perspective. It was expensive though and not many films took it up. From memory, How The West Was Won is the most notable film to be filmed using this technique.

Frankly, I hate 3d. It makes my eyes hurt too and I'll be just glad to see the back of it.

[Lord Tyrannicus]

Where I live (Which is the east coast of Australia) we have to pay almost triple prices ($8.00au for normal, $20.00 for 3D), but the only cinemas that show 3D are the slightly better equipped ones, which is think is a bigger screen and slightly bigger seats. I don't think it's worth it, I saw Avatar in 2D and wouldn't bother seeing it in 3D. The glasses make my head spin a little and the effects aren't dramatically better than 2D, but I don't think 3D is ruining movies, I don't go to the movies often, but in my oppinion 1 - 2 hours is often just not enough to get an amazing storyline from start to finish, adding in a little 3D can't hurt it much more the time length can, (TV Series are the best), nevertheless.

So I don't think it's such a big deal overall.

~ Lord Tyrannicus

[Tyranid_Wannabe]

Where I live (Which is the east coast of Australia) we have to pay almost triple prices ($8.00au for normal, $20.00 for 3D), but the only cinemas that show 3D are the slightly better equipped ones, which is think is a bigger screen and slightly bigger seats. I don't think it's worth it, I saw Avatar in 2D and wouldn't bother seeing it in 3D. The glasses make my head spin a little and the effects aren't dramatically better than 2D, but I don't think 3D is ruining movies, I don't go to the movies often, but in my oppinion 1 - 2 hours is often just not enough to get an amazing storyline from start to finish, adding in a little 3D can't hurt it much more the time length can, (TV Series are the best), nevertheless.

So I don't think it's such a big deal overall.

~ Lord Tyrannicus

Wait what, where on earth are you getting $8 dollar for normal entry. Even concession in Melbourne is around 15 - 16 dollars. Child is a little less about 14. You end up paying only a few dollars more for 3D so from an economic point of view 3D isn't expensive.

[Jakinder]

In my opinion, we've gotten past the point where mainstream cinema is an art. Now it is a business. Of course I cannot make a complete generalization, because there are still awesome movies. Indie movies need substance to get discovered, and there are some good Hollywood movies out there.

If 3D makes them money, they'll keep it. It gives the cinema's the right to up there prices to whatever seems reasonable, seeing as the audience has no idea how much 3D costs and how that should change the costs. At my theater, its 5 dollars more for 3D. At others, its 2 dollars more. How do we know if we are being ripped off for our 3D? I confuses me, because different Famous Players theaters have their 3D movies cost more or less.

Has 3D ruined cinema?

I don't think we can say that cinema has been completely ruined, but we cannot slap all the blame on 3D. It's the people behind it that we should blame for the loss of quality in movies.

[Lord Tyrannicus]

I'm in Tweed Heads, Gold Coast. I think it's actually $9.50AU for a ticket at full price, but if you have a card It's is or was $8 (atleast last time I used it it was, maybe they got rid of the cards by now), so it's not quite that expensive up here as it is down there. It's AMC Cinemas but I think Birch, Carrol and Coyle have pretty much the same prices.

~ Lord Tyrannicus

[Jehan-Reznor]

if 3d ruined cinema it because the people who go to mediocre movies that are using it, it is just a gimmick IMHO

oh, Cpt. Banjo i like your signature (and no  )