3D: gimmick or not?

nicktay2605 · 6 Sep 2011 at 18:33

Sorry if there's another thread on here about this but I couldn't see one. I went to see Fright Night 3D recently and thought the 3D was really well utilised, but it's the first film I've seen where I felt that it really added to the experience. All the other 3D films I've seen have just made me consider it a bit of a gimmick, what's your verdict on the technology?

Deep · 6 Sep 2011 at 18:42

Gimmick. I never watch 3d films at cinema anymore they aren't worth the premium

Crizzy · 6 Sep 2011 at 19:06

I think I am in the minority of those that do enjoy it.

Tummy · 6 Sep 2011 at 19:11

It's a passing fad.

Grimley · 6 Sep 2011 at 19:12

3D in the Cinema - been in & out of 'fashion' for donkeys years. There was a brief flirtation with said format when I worked in a Cinema way back in the mid 80's.

3D in the home - gimmick & a very overpriced one at that. I won't be buying into it that's for certain. :mad:

semi-pro waster · 6 Sep 2011 at 20:04

I think the past 4 or 5 times I've been to the cinema it has been to see 3D films and I've always been somewhat underwhelmed by the 3D parts, that's assuming I actually noticed they were trying to make it 3D. I'll probably continue to try out 3D films at the cinema from time to time but it's certainly not something I feel enhances the experience much at the moment. There is, of course, the possibility that it's that the films I was watching were rubbish and didn't utilise the 3D very well to begin with.

As for 3D at home, it's not something I'm likely to be adopting any time soon, if I can't notice the benefit on a cinema screen I rather doubt it's going to massively improve for me on a normal TV.

Skii · 6 Sep 2011 at 20:05

Gimmick.

davestar_delux · 6 Sep 2011 at 20:17

They've invested so much cash it wont go away this time.

But once they get rid of the gimmicky 3D (stuff flying/popping out screen towards you and disappearing) and just use it to add depth it is great I think.

I reckon watching 2D stuff will be like going from HD back to SD is now, we will get used to the quality it adds.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 20:20

Not a gimmick. It's here to stay and improve. It's not going anywhere. However it'll be slow Market penetration until technology gets better.

If you consider how much sky has sent, how much all the cinemas have spent and consider that most new tvs come with 3d. It is not a gimmick that will disappear of the shelf. It is certainly here to stay.

Retromatic · 6 Sep 2011 at 21:15

It's not for me - at least not yet.

I found few "wow" moments in some films but they are rare tbh and I found myself wanting to watch in 2d.

Also I don't like the whole "staged" 3d bits. It also makes my eyes go funny and more prone to headaches.

I want to like it, I jumped all over HD when it surfaced in the mainstream but not taken by 3d.

Nemesis379 · 6 Sep 2011 at 21:53

Until they release PROPER 3D films without stupid glasses, 3D is crap.

THMRK · 6 Sep 2011 at 21:54

Gimmick.

Great for animated films though.

PaddyMC89 · 6 Sep 2011 at 21:57

Why would I want to pay 20% more to see a darker version of the film, with uncomfortable glasses and pointless, floaty objects constantly reminding me I'm watching something in 3D?

If the point of 3D is an extra tool to help immerse you into the film, then every single film I've seen with it in (yes, including Avatar) has completely failed; as whenever there's a shot in 3D, your involvement in the story is interrupted to think to yourself "oh, that was 3D". Thus, rendering it a gimmick.

3D only works in films like Jackass or Piranha, that are completely self-aware of it's uselessness / gimmickry.

Randomface74 · 6 Sep 2011 at 21:58

Gimmick

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 22:46

billysielu said:
Gimmick

Woody__ said:
Gimmick.
.

You honestly think that after all the money spent and all high end tvs having 3d it's a gimmick and will die like the old ones.
It might be pretty rubbish, but it's here to stay.

It's not a throw away addition or something useless. However you look at it, it doesn't fall into the meaning of gimmick.

THMRK · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:02

AcidHell2 said:
You honestly think that after all the money spent and all high end tvs having 3d it's a gimmick and will die like the old ones.
It might be pretty rubbish, but it's here to stay.

It's not a throw away addition or something useless. However you look at it, it doesn't fall into the meaning of gimmick.

You could say the same thing about HD-DVD, LaserDisc and Betamax...

Lots of money plowed into it only for it to fail.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:07

Woody__ said:
You could say the same thing about HD-DVD, LaserDisc and Betamax...

Lots of money plowed into it only for it to fail.

Those were format wars. this isn't really the same. That's more like either active or passive 3d winning. 3d is in all cinemas and within a few years will be in even cheap tvs.

THMRK · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:10

I think the dip in box office grosses on 3D films this summer says otherwise.

PhillyDee · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:14

Its impossible to compare 3d cinema with 3d cinems, purely because the films are not on at the same times. Me and SWMBO have unlimited cards, and because of other commitments, can only go for the ~8pm or later showings. All of those are 3d for the big releases (assumign they are). Pretty much forced into going to see the 3D over the 2d, despite 3d cinema being a pain in the eyeball.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:14

Woody__ said:
I think the dip in box office grosses on 3D films this summer says otherwise.

So they are going to dismantle 3d projectors, scrap including 3d in tvs. Sky/virgin are going to scrap their 3d offerings and producers are going to throw their 3d cameras in the. Bin. Many people actually like 3d.
Again it is. Not a. Gimmick.
A gimmick is some tat thrown on as a marketing exercise to sale more. 3d actually has a real benefit.

It really is little difference. To hd tv. That took almost a decade to be accepted properly. 3d is making headway much faster than that.