BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.

Subject: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:05 AM

I know that I'm supposed to embrace all the new technologies - but all the 3-D movies are getting a little over the top. From time to time it's done well - but I don't really need it to enjoy a movie. Esp if it's being used to replace good solid story telling, plot and acting. So I hope this is just a fad that will run it's course like it did back in the 60's.

Beside - the glasses don't fit well and I just end up with a headache.

Wesley - the old stuck in the mud grouch.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:11 AM

Who gives a rat's...patootie?

Most of them are simply showing off.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:20 AM

More eye-candy for the mesmerized by technology generation.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:34 AM

Me too. 3-D is much ado about nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:37 AM

We need to remember that, at 'our' age & older,
our eyes no longer respond as well as required
to fully enjoy lengthy 3D movies.

The expected consequence being eye-strain and headaches..

Shame really, because I became fascinated with 3D since my first childhood
experience of a primitive technology 3D Batman comic..

.. and serious study of 3D applications in photography during my 20's...

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:45 AM

I heavily dislike it, especially if they don't seem to use it (plus I'm not convinced it works for me).

As an aside, if you're getting headaches, these may be of use.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,punkrolkrocker
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:54 AM

.. and some of the older grumpy gits here should cast their minds back to their bygone youth..

..furtive grubby illicit viewings of provocative plump nudey women
on grandpa's old Victorian 3D Card Viewer...

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:39 AM

I was happy when movies were silent! We don't need all this clever pants new technology.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:44 AM

To me, the high spot of 3-D movies was Bwana Devil, where the lion ate Nigel Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:44 AM

I quite like stereoscopic still photography. A friend of mine taught photography at the Royal College of Art in London in the 1960s, and his speciality was stereo photography. Very interesting results with a special viewer - but unnecessary for films, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Becca72
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:44 AM

Can't handle 3D movies, myself. Not only do I get a major headache but it plays hell with my motion sickness. Back in the dark ages of high school (late 80s) we went to the Museum of Science (or it could have been the Aquarium...)in Boston and they showed us an IMAX movie. The entire audience was standing (no seats)...I ended up having to sit on the floor and cover my eyes because I almost passed out. I'll stick to 2D, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 11:48 AM

I love those old Victorian stereopticons. I made transferred 15 LPs to CDs in trade for one (with a box of cards of ancient Egypt sites). I have even been able to print out, from computer sites, and with moderate success, stereo scenes for use with the viewer.

As to 3D movies, I loved them as a kid of 13 or so. The main draw back was the polarized lenses (being the shade of sun glasses) tended to make the picture rather dark. They tried to compensate for this with a more highly reflective screen, but it wasn't that much better. I never saw a film in the red/green(blue) process until a revival of the 50s films was shown in the late 70s...that process totally sucked.

I have not seen any of the current crop of 3D, and probably won't.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Wesley S
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 12:37 PM

I'm reminded of what Roger Ebert said about color in the movies. At times it's just not needed. It imparts too much information. You don't need to see Grace Kelly in a red dress to know she was hot.

I thought the 3-D effect was used well in one of the recent Harry Potter movies. They only used it in the last 15 or 20 minutes - so it wasn't overdone.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 12:42 PM

Make that what Ebert said about COLORIZING movies shot in B&W.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: olddude
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 12:58 PM

Unless they want to redo wagon train or gunsmoke in 3D they can count me out ... I am not a fan. I found watching avatar just fine on my TV in 2 d

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: MikeL2
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 03:25 PM

Hi

I am not much of a cinema goer these days and only watch films on TV.....don't have 3d.

However only last week we took our youngest grandson out and I went into PC World/Currys while my wife and grandson were looking for something in another shop.

When they finished they came into PC World and while we were looking at some cameras a nice lady assistant sat my grandson down in front of a demonstration of HD TV in 3D.

As we came to pick him up naturally we looked at the Demo. I have to say that I thought it was fantastic. OK it was a special loop showing off the new media at it's very best.

The glasses fitted well on me and my eyes ( catatacts and all...) were not in any way strained. Much better than the old ones we had way back when.

Won't be buying it but I have to say that we were impressed.

Bought a new gas fire though !!   lol

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 09:46 AM

I've seen a couple of 3-D movies, and I don't think the 3-D made much difference.

I do think the movie industry ought to research the effects (headaches, motion sickness, etc) that movies have on people. Too many movies are losing too much money, and nobody seems to ask why.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:39 PM

We saw "Avatar" in 3-D and Imax and it was a fine spectacle... we were decidedly entertained, despite the missing "good solid story telling, plot and acting". Took a few hours after the "wow!" of the visuals to say, "Hmm... crappy movie." But, I'm not sorry we saw it because they were pretty pictures.

However, we recently saw Werner Herzog's documentary "Cave of Forgotten Dreams", which is all about the visuals: the prehistoric art of Chauvet cave. The 3-D really helped to get the sense of the art in its cave context.

We were at the same theater for another movie before seeing "Cave" and noted that the ticket sellers were warning people (a decidedly mature audience) that some folks had a motion-sickness response... no warning happened to be offered on the day we went. The initial scenes (hiking up to the cave with a shaky hand-held camera) were rough for me, the rest was fine.

So, I guess my conclusion is that 3-D can have its uses, but probably is a waste for most movies. Fun for the kids for action films. And a tool to consider for some films with particular visual interest.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 02:14 PM

"Poll: 3D movies - Have you had enough of them?"


..DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg described the 3D decline as "heartbreaking" to The Hollywood Reporter. The producer, whose last five DreamWorks animated releases have all debuted on 3D screens, theorised that "genuine distrust" had emerged between the paying public and Hollywood after a string of movies that "seriously undermined" the 3D experience.


"It's really heartbreaking to see what has been the single greatest opportunity that has happened to the film business in over a decade being harmed," Katzenberg said. "The audience has spoken, and they have spoken really loudly."..


.. "There is nothing wrong with 3D per se, Avatar being a perfect example of how jaw-dropping the technology can be, but due to its success there have been a whole raft of sub-standard films that simply have the effect of driving people away from the technology."..

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/at-the-movies/a324805/poll-3d-movies-have-you-had-enough-of-them.html

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:18 PM

Avatar was highly overrated.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 09:04 AM

2-D Movies are good enough for me too. Usually there is a choice the cheaper one being 2-D. If the content, quality and (hopefully acting) is good then I don't see the point in paying extra if it's good it will hold my attention anyway, the cost of a cinema ticket is already extortionate.

Whatever happened to the concept of using different smells during a film, did 'smellavision' ever take off? Obviously not, why not? Would be great for horror movies.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Charmion
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 09:10 AM

I'm blind in one eye and don't see particularly well out of the other, which means I see real life in 2-D. I have stayed out of cinemas showing 3-D movies because the tickets cost more, but I'm wondering what I would actually see of all that technology. When I look into one of those Victorian stereoscopes I see an overlapping double image, and it's not fun.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: ranger1
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 07:53 AM

Charmion, those 3-D effects are lost on the likes of you and I due to vision issues. Continue saving your money at the cinema.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 08:25 AM

Guest, Patsy .... 'smellavision' is out of the question ... we now live in a scent free world .... people here in Canada can now get fired from their jop if they do not comply to the 'scent free environment' work place.

biLL .... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 11:15 AM

Number 6 - and the reason that happened is that some people don't know when enough is enough. I used to work with a woman who wore enough perfume to gag a maggot.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 11:25 AM

Well done Canada !!!!

I have breathing problems...

so anyone drenched in strong chemical warfare fragrances
can inflict as much immediate physical discomfort to me
with their malingering vapour trail
as any smokers can in public places...


BBC recently made use of novelty scratch 'n' sniff cards
to tie in with broadcast of a series portraying
the foul stinks of life in early developing cities.

We gave our free card to our 10 year old nephew.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: lefthanded guitar
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 01:40 PM

They're coming out with 3D STILL cameras next. I don't want one.


I just went to the photo exhibit at the Met and I can tell you that the newer technology does NOT make for a better photograph- or photographer. The most stunning, beautiful and timeless photos I saw were by Steichen (early 20th century) of ghostly trees at night- and Steigletz-(late 19th century!) of New York City streets at night- as elegant and iconic as its ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:16 PM

I agree lefthand .... we seem to be too taken away with technology in regards to photography equipment these days .... there is something to be be said about those photographers and their art in the late 19th century and up until the 1st half of the 20th century,

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:20 PM

Like this photo ... black and white, medium format, taken in natural light

gothic fog

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:21 PM

I'm glad that the practice of drenching oneself in perfume has gone out of favor. Some people still do it, though. I recall some years back on a plane with my seatmates being a honeymooning couple. You wouldn't believe the dizzying effect on me.

I read once that if you like a certain scent, put a dab on your skin just below your nose, that you will get its effect but other people won't be overwhelmed. Makes sense.

I once told a hairdresser that he had overdone his aroma a bit. He said, I like to smell pretty for my customers.

In recent years I have become aware that many/most men that still splash it on are Asian. Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:33 PM

Asian, mid-eastern, mediteranean .... why, I don't know .... cultural I guess ... I guess they aren't as tight ass as us western world types.

I agree ... no one likes anyone drenched in perfume .... but when you see the scent police going through the corridors at work like blood hounds hot on the trail for some person who has used hand lotion I think that is going a bit too far.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 03:02 PM

Re: 3D STILL CAMERAS

Those are nothing new. Kodak used to make 3D cameras which need a special viewer. More recently, there was a company which made a single use 3D camera which required special processing, and was comparatively expensive...about $36 for twelve prints. The prints did not require glasses or a viewer. We used such camera on several vacations, the pictures of which are not wonderful, but they are fun to look at. I'm not sure that company is still around, and I never see the cameras for sale.

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: JHW
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 03:05 PM

3D worked well enough on TT3D, no headache but a gloomy picture. I'm guessing therefore that the system is vertically and horizontally polarised light for the two pictures and indeed my glasses seemed just like sunglasses.
I'd thought the recent proliferation was due to some new digital trickery but I saw polarised at Futuroscope, Poitiers, France fifteen years ago. Also there the much superior LCD glasses which blacked out the left and right lenses alternately in sync with the film showing L & R frames. Why all the fuss now?

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 04:43 PM

When they get it right it'll be fun. I'm not enjoying the beta testing...

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 04:52 PM

Thank goodness { former } Congressman Weiner didn't have one....

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 03:09 PM

3-D 'Motion Pictures' From The Civil War

In this article on NPR, there are images from the Smithsonian's Photographic History Collection that were originally stereographs and are animated by rapidly alternating the two images, allowing the image to appear 3-D on your computer monitor. It's an interesting effect. Not perfect, but permits viewing these images on the web, close to the way they were intended.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 28 Jun 11 - 08:22 PM

Slightly relevant joke stolen from The Now Show.

"I watched Avatar in 1D. That's when you close your eyes and listen to how bad the acting is"

Subject: RE: BS: 2-D Movies are good enough for me.
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Jul 11 - 09:55 AM

For a little while you'll be able to see some fine commentarys on 3-D movies here:


Roger Ebert website