Diatribe: 3D Or Not 3D. That Is The Question.
I like Oreos. I’ve always liked Oreos. I’ll never stop liking Oreos. As a child Oreos were a treat. And I could eat my way through a package in to time at all. My parents quickly learned that my gift for super-efficient cookie consumption would send them to the poorhouse if allowed to thrive unchecked. Eventually, my father determined that it was more economical to buy an off brand because “they last longer”. I found the logic behind his theory to be flawed. I wanted the real thing and Hydrox cookies weren’t Oreos no matter how much he wanted me to think that they were.
Watching a 3D movie in traditional format is like eating a Hydrox cookie while you know there are Oreos in the cookie jar. Or, for the youngsters in the audience, like carrying a smart phone that doesn’t have internet service. You just know that it’s supposed to be better.
Perhaps movie studios need to make up their minds when it comes to 3D. Before filming begins, they should decide if the viewer needs an extra dimension to understand and enjoy the story, action sequences, etc. and then determine if it should be seen in 3D.
If 3D is the movie-making medium of the future, then so be it … but use it exclusively. Don’t give the audience a choice or, inevitably, half of the viewers will be disappointed.
When you watch a movie that includes 3D effects but you’re not watching it in 3D, you feel like you’re being cheated. You know that the movie is supposed to be “better” than what you’re seeing. Watching a movie in a “traditional” format that is also intended to be viewed in 3D is extremely distracting. It’s quite obvious when a 3D effect is utilized and disappointing when you don’t get to see it. Does anyone else think to themselves “Oh, I bet that was cool in 3D”?
It’s like eating a Hydrox when you know that you’d enjoy an Oreo more.
What I want to know is why they are filming The Great Gatsby in 3D. What the? Do they think it will make the viewer drink more? Are there booze product placements, does Leonardo take a sip of Seagrams and make yummy noises at the camera?
I get why Immortals is in 3D, even Harold and Kumar with all the stoner crap. I don’t understand 3D-ing a classic drama of American literature.
I don’t get why they make them in BOTH … perhaps it’s an attempt to get us to pay the higher 3D admission price in hopes that we won’t miss something?
I really don’t care about 3D.
It doesn’t make me see the movie just because it’s 3D.
But seriously, ‘Gatsby’?????
That’s high-larious!
The only 3D movies that I’ve really enjoyed are the animated ones that use the technique as a part of the story. “Despicable Me” comes to mind.
I really do not like the new 3D trend. I just find 3D movies annoying and usually end up with a migraine.
For me it is just not ‘special’ enough to warrant the extra price and hassle.
I’m the same way. Unless I can sit right in the center of the theater I feel like I go cross-eyed the whole time.
F*ck 3-D. Rarely, if ever, does it live up to the hype and the extra 3 bucks at the theater.
Plus, i hate wearing the g*ddamn glasses.
I enjoy oreos so much, I recently had an oreo-gasm!
ROFL! I wish I’d thought of that!
In San Antonio where I live the theaters that have 3D movies either have only 3D showings or they only have the traditional showing – they don’t show both. I happen to detest 3D, as other comments have stated it adds little and isn’t worth the $3 added cost. It really pisses me off when I have to find another theater to watch the movie not in 3D. In fact now I’d just rather not see most any movie if it’s even been filmed in 3D, it’s just not worth the hassle. It really seems to be a gimmick to me that even the makers of films know is just to have an added publicity angle.
Exactly! Seems to me that San Antonio has the right idea!