FROM DAMON’S DESK: FUCK 3-D

Yeah, I don't really care for 3D. Though I have made it a personal rule to only see 3D films that have Tom Atkins in them.

Amen Damon, preach it from the mountain top my friend. I'm yet to see 3D film that grips me or dazzles me as much as a film with a fantastic story and characters I care about.

I'll take Inception in 2D on the big screen for my visual wows and immersion a hundred times before I bother watching Avatar in 3D again personally. 

I think you touch on a wider issue as well, in the way you mention older audiences being used to using their intellect to suspend disbelief in the face of artistic cinematic artiface, and it seems to be something being lost by audiences who've come of age since the rise of computer generated effects.

It's why I much prefer watching Harryhausens work on Jason And The Argonauts than the supposed photoreal mythical beasts in Clash Of The Titans - but conversely that initial immersion in practical effects is why I'll take the chariot race in Ben-Hur any day over the whizz bangery of modern cg action sequences.

I don't want to write 3D off. I'm still willing to be wowed and converted. But so far neither Avatar nor Tron were able to. What's the next flagship 3D movie coming out? Tintin? At The Mountains Of Madness?

But I agree, mostly. So far I haven't watched a movie in 3D where it added to anything other than the price.

3D also has a really bad habit of reminding you just how wide the movie screen is. Any objects cut in half by the edges of the frame? Float as half an object. So filmmakers avoid that and shot composition always feels weird and cramped as a result.

I think 3D needs a Brakhage, someone to really experiment and fuck around. But unlike Brakhage and his editing, it's way too cost-prohibitive to make experimental films in 3D. 

I could not agree more, great write up Damon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

I think 3D needs a Brakhage, someone to really experiment and fuck around. But unlike Brakhage and his editing, it's way too cost-prohibitive to make experimental films in 3D. 

Out of all the movies that are coming out in 3D, At The Mountains Of Madness seems like the only one where it may add something that would be impossible otherwise. But I don't they'd be too willing to fuck with the audience in such a high budget movie. 

The places where I personally see 3D taking hold are sports and (especially)videogames. In the case of sports they might have to totally rethink camera placement, like with pitching in baseball.

Thing is, wearing those TV glasses for long periods of time like you would with games... no way. You would be cross-eyed. And as a fellow spectacle-wearer, uncomfortable. I haven't touched a gaming system in 3 weeks, but next time I do, I bet it will last 12 hours. My brain would melt. I realize this article isn't about 3D games, but I'm VERY curious how the Nintendo 3DS works out.

You mention Avatar, which I really dug in 3D(and saw twice), but in all honesty the best "3D moments" of that movie are before Jake even arrives on Pandora. The shot of the droplets of water and the massive cryochamber, are frankly, amazing. Most of the rest is really cool. By the the time the final battles came around it was like I was numb to it. Seemed like a 2D picture. 

As for film, I'm with you man. Until someone does something REALLY creative/OVER THE TOP/weird with the format. I'd kill to see Speed Racer in natively shot 3D, but considering 2D almost gave me an aneurysm in theaters, I'm not so sure. I'd love to see David Lynch shoot a 3D film, for instance.

Sadly, I think 3D isn't going anywhere. That may be due to too much money being put into it at this point, or made from it, but it will be the future. WHEN, is the question. My bet is on when glasses are no longer needed, and headaches don't occur. Give it ten years. Most filmmakers will hold out, much like film vs. digital, and some will never change, or it will never appeal to them when they start their careers, but I can totally see it totally taking over the Summer season at the very least.

Good stuff Andre(old habits die hard!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

3D also has a really bad habit of reminding you just how wide the movie screen is. Any objects cut in half by the edges of the frame? Float as half an object. So filmmakers avoid that and shot composition always feels weird and cramped as a result.

 

I think 3D needs a Brakhage, someone to really experiment and fuck around. But unlike Brakhage and his editing, it's way too cost-prohibitive to make experimental films in 3D. 

I'm not so sure about that. Saw a 3D camcorder in Best Buy last week. No idea if the quality is worth a damn, but tech moves FAST.

Great piece, Damon. As a person who can't watch two minutes of it without getting a migraine, I hope 3D dies out soon. I've had to start skipping some films in theaters altogether because of the complete lack of non-3D showings.

I've managed to have no physical problems with any 3D movies.  All of them have been pretty enjoyable as I've avoided the ones that were most criticized.  And even then, I haven't changed my mind that it's a gimmick.  But I don't see it going away either. 

I find the sentiment that 3D is much like surround sound to be pretty accurate.  When I first got a surround sound system, I would put in DVDs just to check out certain scenes to experience the sound design.  Watching the movie itself was not a priority.  It became a bad habit actually and I eventually grew bored of it.  When my family moved and packed up all the big stuff, I found myself just watching my DVDs on my computer.  Suddenly I was just watching films again.  The lack of IMMERSIVE SOUND wasn't an issue at all.  If anything, it was less distracting to being engaged with the film itself. 

If I had a 3DTV, I could easily see myself going through the same phase. 

And I've said this before, but I often find that 3D reduces the scale of big movies.  Even in goddamned Avatar, the fact that these huge choppers were floating in my face made them feel like action figures.  Big action figures that I could tinker with my hands.  If they were floating around in the background, they looked like Micro-Machines instead of something far away in the background.  It was anti-immersion.

Great piece, Damon.  It articulates my general feelings really well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Out of all the movies that are coming out in 3D, At The Mountains Of Madness seems like the only one where it may add something that would be impossible otherwise.

I can almost guarantee all you guys that are filthy wet over "...Mountains..." are going to discover that things like "impossible architecture that instantly drive a person insane" come off SOOO much better on the page than actually presented as a visual you can look at. It's the kind of abstract notion that is amazing when you read it, but almost impossible to live up to as a visual.

Every time people talk about that film and 3D, that's the main thing that comes up. "Ooooh, you can use 3D to really fuck with people re: the 'impossible architecture.'" How? I'm open to the idea, but I can't help but feel like most are going to be underwhelmed on that particular front, regardless of how the rest of the film plays out.

I'd love to be wrong though.

Good piece- don't I just feel like an asshole now.

I have to say, on the one hand, I don't understand the inability to foresee interesting, worthwhile things being done with the format. I don't understand the tacit dismissal of the interesting filmmakers toying with it. I especially don't buy that the 3D gimmick so uniquely cleaves one's suspension-of-disbelief / immersion more than any other kind of special effect, or even particularly badass piece of cinematography. (Most) Movies are nothing like a Matrix-style download directly to the memory banks, or some other pure, dedicated stream of raw storytelling data- they're a guy dragging you around a city to different places, throwing paintings at you, blaring music, shoving food in your mouth etc. etc. I don't buy that there are more "pure" forms of noticing shit about how a film is made than others. Either you're completely riding with the film, or you're being analytical, or some synthesis of the two, but appreciating the craft of beautiful stop-motion is equally un-immersive* as noticing that 3D is happening to you, even if warm gives you a warm fuzzy and the other doesn't. At that point it becomes taste and subjective appreciation, which is perfectly acceptable and justifiable as a reason to hate something and never patronize it. But it ain't some grand flaw in the whole idea that's new to this and only this "gimmick." At that point it's the same issues being leveled at shaky-cam, or MTV-style cutting, or noir-lighting, or whatever out-of-the-norm experiential element a particular person finds a problem with.

After a group viewing of Brick last night I had to listen to an extremely talented (albeit young) cinematographer give his reasons for not liking noir-lighting on principle, which is why he thinks the film is only "okay." This just made me think he needs to see more movies and become more secure in the knowledge of his craft that he clearly possesses.  Obviously the complete and total opposite is true with Damon and a large number of chewers, many of whom have seen more films than I even know exist, but the core discussion is strikingly similar.

On the other hand, greedy studios and post-conversions and dumb glasses and theaters with no 2D choices and on and on. I hate these things too- I really really do.

I dunno. It just seems so obvious to me that shit ain't going away, so the whole "fuck it" thing maybe isn't the most useful. Tweets well though. I tend to turn out to be young and stupid on shit like this though, so this is purely what I see. It doesn't escape me that extremely smart people who I respect have started toeing a pretty hard-line "this is bullshit" stance. But then again... Herzog.

Still, a good piece.

*I know that's not a word, but all of the synonyms for the idea are too judgemental.

I can't help but think if the reaction (way too overly-optimistic) surrounding 3D were more tame, then the counter-reaction wouldn't be so strong. If it had never been presented as the "savior of modern cinema," a lot of us would be more willing to embrace it as what it is: a better version of an old gimmick that can, from time to time, yield great and fun results. But it ain't for everything (3Dinner with Andre, etc. etc.).

But I mean... Jackass 3D. That's a GREAT use of the technology. And there certainly is great potential for a filmmaker to get creative and do something truly innovative storytelling wise that kind of "needs" the format. But even considering that, the "gimmick" label still applies.

But using it sparingly and having enough theaters to handle the tech don't go hand in hand, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeypants 

Every time people talk about that film and 3D, that's the main thing that comes up. "Ooooh, you can use 3D to really fuck with people re: the 'impossible architecture.'" How? I'm open to the idea, but I can't help but feel like most are going to be underwhelmed on that particular front, regardless of how the rest of the film plays out.

 

I'd love to be wrong though.

I don't even know if it is possible but maybe reverse the depth information and have for example a convex corner appear concave? Have the far wall of a room appear closer than the near one? As I said it seems possible to me. I don't know if it will work or if they will even bother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

I don't even know if it is possible but maybe reverse the depth information and have for example a convex corner appear concave? Have the far wall of a room appear closer than the near one? As I said it seems possible to me. I don't know if it will work or if they will even bother.

Que?  (also, apologies as this may be getting ever so slightly off-topic and too Mountains-centric. I'd be happy to take this line of questioning over to the pre-release)

There are Camerons and Eberts on both sides, certainly, but I'm more inclined to simply ignore the hyperbolic, usually ignorant propaganda from either of them than remove the nuance from my own feelings. This is likely why I can't stay engaged with politics for more than a week or two consecutively though, which ultimately makes me a less useful citizen.

Renn, I really think you could take those thoughts and stretch it into a good companion piece for Damon's.

Because I think you're right.  There's a lot more going on in the 3D fight than the format simply being good or bad, which is why I don't see it going away despite my misgivings about it.  It's mentioned all the time, but the big strike against 3D is the fact that it requires an accessory.  That immediately draws more attention to itself as 'something more' than faster cutting, stop-motion, unconventional cinematography, etc... whether it actually is 'something more' or not.

How can anyone not like noir-lighting!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Renn, I really think you could take those thoughts and stretch it into a good companion piece for Damon's.

 

Because I think you're right.  There's a lot more going on in the 3D fight than the format simply being good or bad, which is why I don't see it going away despite my misgivings about it.  It's mentioned all the time, but the big strike against 3D is the fact that it requires an accessory.  That immediately draws more attention to itself as 'something more' than faster cutting, stop-motion, unconventional cinematography, etc... whether it actually is 'something more' or not.

 

How can anyone not like noir-lighting!?

Appreciate the thought, but I've pissed my 5k words into the wind already. I doubt many would ask for more.

3-D's harmless and potentially great!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

Appreciate the thought, but I've pissed my 5k words into the wind already. I doubt many would ask for more.

True.  I was thinking of something more as a response and perhaps not as intimidating (hahahah).  Something that promotes the variety of strong opinions on CHUD.   But after 5k words on something, I'd be less than thrilled about jumping back in too. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll 

3D also has a really bad habit of reminding you just how wide the movie screen is. Any objects cut in half by the edges of the frame? Float as half an object. So filmmakers avoid that and shot composition always feels weird and cramped as a result.

That's a bingo. I've never had the 3D headaches myself and I liked the experience of Avatar enough to see it twice in 3D, but even in that movie - the pre-eminent example of a film specifically shot for 3D by Mr 3D himself - the Edge Effect was in effect. And I saw that puppy in Imax, which you'd think would be the best way to mitigate that effect. The other way to mitigate it is by stuffing the frame, which doesn't work either (because there are always edges) and only ends up giving either that cramped composition or a weirdly stagey one, where only background is at the edges.

So when Damon mentions that simple aspect of filmmaking and storytelling which is that the minute you notice dimension, you’re no longer engaged, it's that Edge Effect, which results in a reduced sense of realism and immersion, which comes to mind for me rather than any kind of enhanced realism.

I don't know if Edge Effect should be capitalised before but I'm damn sure capitalising it.

Ultimately, I guess my argument really only goes for mainstream entertainment - which 3-D is mostly applied to - because when you get into something like Godard's Breathless, and how he's using camera as commentary, or even something like what Brian De Palma does,etc. How aware are you of the tracking shot in Goodfellas, or do you just notice it because you've seen the film a number of times now, and it's been pointed out, lens flares, etc. Editing in general. What is storytelling, what is showing off, what is gimmickry? Can of worms that. But I disagree with Nick, I don't think it's harmless the way it's being slathered over everything like ketchup, though over-saturation is likely the only way to kill it.

There are a lot of amazing feats of technical artistry I've only come know only AFTER reading about a film post-viewing.  The Goodfellas shot is one of them. 

Watching Die Hard again recently, I began to wonder if its lens flares would've been an issue (as with Star Trek) had the film come out in the Internet Age.

This goes back to the issue of 3D requiring an accessory when you walk into the door.  How annoying would it be for the cinematic experience if some studio representative stood at the theater entrance and told you to watch out for the amazing Steadicam shot in Goodfellas? 

The Goodfellas tracking shot is more immersive than almost any 3D experience I've ever had*. And that's the point of the shot, which to me, makes it firmly not a gimmick.

(*barring perhaps Sharks 3D in IMAX which did, at one point, feel like I was scuba diving on a reef)

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

I don't want to write 3D off. I'm still willing to be wowed and converted. But so far neither Avatar nor Tron were able to. What's the next flagship 3D movie coming out? Tintin? At The Mountains Of Madness?

 

But I agree, mostly. So far I haven't watched a movie in 3D where it added to anything other than the price.

It's a gimmick, but money speaks and when people are willing to pay more to see Thor..etc.. in 3D. Then that's just feeding the pig. 3D conversion is huge business right now and with a company like Technicolor getting into it,  it's kind of here to stay for a period of time.

 Scary enough I've noticed the normal movie going public seeing a film first in 3D rather then in 2D.

The main issue I have with 3D is that it becomes completely pointless in a lot of movies.  I mean  for example, would you need 3D in a period piece like Sense and Senseability, and a movie like Schindler's list would be a little tasteless.  As Damon stated above it's a tool, not a new format, but people are acting like all movies should be filmed in the format regardless of if they would benefit from it,

Our departed straw-woman revolutionary (and people who have money in the shit) aside, I don't really see anyone saying that anywhere ever.

Did you guys finally ban her or something? Just curious. On subject, nice article, but I'm a pretty straight forward film watcher anyway, to the point were not even IMAX is all that appealing to me. It also doesn't help that my local IMAX theater is patronized by troglodytes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

Our departed straw-woman revolutionary (and people who have money in the shit) aside, I don't really see anyone saying that anywhere ever.

Pretty much yes, but I have had a lot of conversations with colleauges and non board friends who are very much in the "everything in 3D" camp.

I think it'd be really cool for 3D-filmed stage productions to be distributed to movie theaters.  I'm sure the stage venues would abhor the idea, but I often get jealous that stage productions I'd like to see are well beyond my reach.  Of course, I rarely go to see stage productions to begin with... but....

Damon, this was a good article about the state of mainstream moviegoing in general, but it fails as an argument against 3D. What you're reacting to is the trend of CG animation taking the place of practical stunts and stagework, and that's been going on for a while.

I think they're all connected, honestly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

I think they're all connected, honestly.

Then why blame 3D? I say it's the industry's fault for styling the process as something only they can accomplish with lots of money and computers-- that 3D is only possible as some sort of black-magic applied to any existing film (which is plainly wrong), and for pigeonholing it as something suited solely for animated features and FX spectaculars. They've backed themselves into doing nothing in 3D that isn't inherently artificial, and have enabled a side-industry heavily dependent upon post-conversion work.

It's both cheaper and more effective to stage live action on real locations and photograph it with twin-lens cameras. Jackass was a successful nod in that direction (although it was only partly shot in stereo), and it's the reason I have my fingers crossed for Drive Angry. That's not 'respectable' entertainment, though-- 3D producers have a responsibility to fill the middle-ground with comedies, dramas, and documentaries but as long as premium-ticket pricing stays in place we're just going to see more tent-poles and exploitationers. The problem isn't the process, but the application.

I won't go into the economics of digital 3D presentation here because my previous attempts to start that discussion have gone nowhere.

I wear glasses, and Avatar is the only movie I have seen in 3D, and honestly? It will be the only one. Avatar was the most physically uncomfortable I have ever been in my life. So much so, that I HATED that movie until I recently gave it a second chance over the holidays. Being a glasses wearer....I don't feel that 3D is something I could ever physically enjoy in a movie. I loved Inception and wished that movie would never have ended, whereas with Avatar....i was so uncomfortable after 15 minutes, I was going nuts. The 3D glasses do not fit comfortably with over my normal lenses, and rest too far down on the bridge of my nose. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't feel like they weighed 5 pounds. I know I'm not the only freak in America who wears glasses, but maybe I am the only physically uncomfortable with them. I know people pick theatres for a variety of reasons, one of which includes comfort of seats/legroom/etc.....3D glasses are in that same category.

Anyways, I'm done whining. Sorry this rambled. I just hate hate HATE 3D.

We fear the unfamiliar.

I've only seen two films in 3D: Avatar and Piranha 3D. I was totally bored with Avatar, but I had a blast with Piranha. I don't think my boredom with Avatar had anything to do with the 3D element, but I do think my enjoyment of Piranha was enhanced by the 3D. So basically I'm saying I don't know where I stand with this debate. I'm willing to wait and see what Scorsese and Herzog bring to the table before I totally dismiss it, but as of right now I'm not too interested in seeing films in 3D. 

I tend to think 3-D works well with exploitation. Is my problem that the industry is trying to turn themselves and their films into theme park rides? Maybe. But the 3-D obsession has more to do with inflated ticket prices from a business point of view. I can't think of a 3-D film that's better because it's in 3-D except the exploitation films, but what it adds to the film is - at best - a couple minutes of ooh and aah. I mean, I guess I could have approached this by saying it's mostly just a rip-off (which it is), but ultimately I don't think it adds much, and often detracts. I guess it could be an evolutionary thing, or an acceptance, but where the addition of sound or color has more to do with how the technology of film developed, 3-D is still (at least now) in its infancy. And a lot of the early sound and color films worked as gimmickry as well. But until someone does it with great art, I'm not sold, and since a lot of people thought that was AVATAR, and I liked the film more in 2-D, then I can't see myself ever loving the format, because I find that it works best when it calls attention to itself, and I've yet to have an experience that hasn't had highlights that are eventually more distracting than involving. But I also haven't really seen it used in a way that enhances cinema, which arguably color and sound did and have. Like those other elements I bemoan, they strike me as more distracting than engaging.

I don't complete agree with the GQ article, but I do think that a lot of adults have trained themselves to wait for home video. This is the studios fault for not nuturing the adult audience, and this gets even worse in a depression/recession. The studios solution to that is to charge forward with something that costs more. If cinema is dying, then I can understand the cash grab, but that's a sad thought when you do have films like The Town or Black Swan or The Social Network, etc.

I got here too late, but I was going to say the same thing as nooj and Patrick - the confines of the screen are weird, and everything suddenly looks tiny because it's brought down to your scale. Good show boys. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe 

I wear glasses, and Avatar is the only movie I have seen in 3D, and honestly? It will be the only one. Avatar was the most physically uncomfortable I have ever been in my life. So much so, that I HATED that movie until I recently gave it a second chance over the holidays. Being a glasses wearer....I don't feel that 3D is something I could ever physically enjoy in a movie. I loved Inception and wished that movie would never have ended, whereas with Avatar....i was so uncomfortable after 15 minutes, I was going nuts. The 3D glasses do not fit comfortably with over my normal lenses, and rest too far down on the bridge of my nose. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't feel like they weighed 5 pounds. I know I'm not the only freak in America who wears glasses, but maybe I am the only physically uncomfortable with them. I know people pick theatres for a variety of reasons, one of which includes comfort of seats/legroom/etc.....3D glasses are in that same category.

Anyways, I'm done whining. Sorry this rambled. I just hate hate HATE 3D.

Did you see Avatar at an IMAX theater, cause their 3-D glasses are much bigger than the usual 3-D frames. Not saying that using the traditional 3-D glasses at theaters outside of IMAX venues will help, but that there is a considerable difference between the frames.

Example

ETA: About the linked blog post: I'm not sure what the author is on about with regard to the colored tinting of the lenses. From my experience, it's all polarized. My main point is the difference in size between the IMAX glasses and the rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

I tend to think 3-D works well with exploitation. Is my problem that the industry is trying to turn themselves and their films into theme park rides? Maybe. But the 3-D obsession has more to do with inflated ticket prices from a business point of view. I can't think of a 3-D film that's better because it's in 3-D except the exploitation films, but what it adds to the film is - at best - a couple minutes of ooh and aah. I mean, I guess I could have approached this by saying it's mostly just a rip-off (which it is), but ultimately I don't think it adds much, and often detracts. I guess it could be an evolutionary thing, or an acceptance, but where the addition of sound or color has more to do with how the technology of film developed, 3-D is still (at least now) in its infancy. And a lot of the early sound and color films worked as gimmickry as well. But until someone does it with great art, I'm not sold, and since a lot of people thought that was AVATAR, and I liked the film more in 2-D, then I can't see myself ever loving the format, because I find that it works best when it calls attention to itself, and I've yet to have an experience that hasn't had highlights that are eventually more distracting than involving. But I also haven't really seen it used in a way that enhances cinema, which arguably color and sound did and have. Like those other elements I bemoan, they strike me as more distracting than engaging.

 

I don't complete agree with the GQ article, but I do think that a lot of adults have trained themselves to wait for home video. This is the studios fault for not nuturing the adult audience, and this gets even worse in a depression/recession. The studios solution to that is to charge forward with something that costs more. If cinema is dying, then I can understand the cash grab, but that's a sad thought when you do have films like The Town or Black Swan or The Social Network, etc.

Distills my problems with the format quite nicely. There's an argument to be made for 3D as an artistic tool, but it's not being used as that and the studios - the people with the money currently to do 3D - aren't interested in that approach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

I tend to think 3-D works well with exploitation. Is my problem that the industry is trying to turn themselves and their films into theme park rides? Maybe. But the 3-D obsession has more to do with inflated ticket prices from a business point of view. I can't think of a 3-D film that's better because it's in 3-D except the exploitation films, but what it adds to the film is - at best - a couple minutes of ooh and aah. I mean, I guess I could have approached this by saying it's mostly just a rip-off (which it is), but ultimately I don't think it adds much, and often detracts. I guess it could be an evolutionary thing, or an acceptance, but where the addition of sound or color has more to do with how the technology of film developed, 3-D is still (at least now) in its infancy. And a lot of the early sound and color films worked as gimmickry as well. But until someone does it with great art, I'm not sold, and since a lot of people thought that was AVATAR, and I liked the film more in 2-D, then I can't see myself ever loving the format, because I find that it works best when it calls attention to itself, and I've yet to have an experience that hasn't had highlights that are eventually more distracting than involving. But I also haven't really seen it used in a way that enhances cinema, which arguably color and sound did and have. Like those other elements I bemoan, they strike me as more distracting than engaging.

 

I don't complete agree with the GQ article, but I do think that a lot of adults have trained themselves to wait for home video. This is the studios fault for not nuturing the adult audience, and this gets even worse in a depression/recession. The studios solution to that is to charge forward with something that costs more. If cinema is dying, then I can understand the cash grab, but that's a sad thought when you do have films like The Town or Black Swan or The Social Network, etc.

That pretty much sums up my problem with 3D. For all the talk of how it's the next level of art and filmmaking, the only time 3D has ever impressed me is when shit's flying at me out of the screen. You know, the stuff they did in the 50's.

I've seen it compared to High-Def instead of colour or sound, seeing as it's more of the next step in visuals rather than something that will be used to improve the cinema itself. Still... High-Def doesn't require you to wear fucking glasses. Those things are so uncomfortable... they make me feel cut off from EVERYTHING that's around me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe 

I wear glasses, and Avatar is the only movie I have seen in 3D, and honestly? It will be the only one. Avatar was the most physically uncomfortable I have ever been in my life.

I have had nearly perfect vision for my entire life and I found watching Avatar to be extremely uncomfortable as well. I had to step out of the theater three times during the movie due to this. I'm not someone that gets motion sick normally either, it just bothers the hell out of my eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Z 

 

Did you see Avatar at an IMAX theater, cause their 3-D glasses are much bigger than the usual 3-D frames. Not saying that using the traditional 3-D glasses at theaters outside of IMAX venues will help, but that there is a considerable difference between the frames.

 

Example

 

ETA: About the linked blog post: I'm not sure what the author is on about with regard to the colored tinting of the lenses. From my experience, it's all polarized. My main point is the difference in size between the IMAX glasses and the rest.

Yes I did. At one of the quasi-IMAX theatres in an AMC. The glasses seemed okay initially, but 15 minutes into the movie the pain set in.

3D should just stick to the mini shows at Universal studios and the like.