Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    2D or not 2D (that is the question) « previous next »
Author Topic: 2D or not 2D (that is the question)  (Read 1862 times)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
PEE Poll: What you go to the cinema, do you prefer movies to be in 3D or 2D?
3D:  3D is the future of cinema   -2 (6.1%)
2D:  Cinema is a 2D medium and we're being sold a pup.   -31 (93.9%)
Total Voters: 33

Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« on: 07-23-2011 15:40 »

3D, don't you just love it?  According to some, however, it's waste of a perfectly good dimention.  Nowadays, we're being forcefed 3D as the way things are going in the cinema, and we're all going to have to get used to it.

I'm not so sure, I recently went to see the Harry Potter movie in 2D, reason being is that it was shot in 2D and retrofitted into 3D afterwards.  What seemed to me to have been designed and shot for 2D, and had the 3D bolted on to gain a little more money at the box office.

I actually think that it's a cynical move to avoid movie piracy, and the added insult of having to PAY EXTRA FOR THE GLASSES is like saying, "yes, you can have this coffee, but you have to pay extra for the cup"...

So, 3D vs 2D and the merits therewith.  Discuss.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #1 on: 07-23-2011 15:48 »

2D all the way.
3D often looks cheap, too dark (also cause of the glasses) and is often just used as a cheap gimmick instead of a device like colour was first used.
Nutmeg1729

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #2 on: 07-23-2011 15:49 »

I'll always prefer 2D purely because I can't actually see 3D all that well. I can't use those Nintendo 3DS on the 3D setting because within about 40 seconds I have a massive headache and want to gouge my eyes out. I just can't focus on it, it's all a mass of blurry lines.

For that reason I prefer to see things in 2D, and also because I don't see why I need to feel like things from the screen are coming out at me... why do I need to feel like I'm being zapped by spells, or that one of the characters is coming out of the screen? I don't get it at all.

It was cool when I was younger, when 3D was an alien thing and it was funky to see things emerging. It was obviously never as good as the adverts made out... but yeah. Unfortunately, they're taking over. You can now buy 3D TVs for your home for crying out loud.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #3 on: 07-23-2011 16:03 »

3D is just an excuse to charge extra for those glasses. I've got a couple of pairs now, and I'm going to keep and re-use them. I'm also thinking of taking them apart and switching over the polarising filters to make them into 2D glasses. I'll be able to see any 3D film in 2D!

Amazing, two dimensions!
any1else

Space Pope
****
« Reply #4 on: 07-23-2011 16:30 »

I hate how almost all the trailers/posters these days now have in small print at the bottom "Show in 2D in selected cinemas."
Excuse me? Shouldn't it be the other way around - in 3D in selected cinemas? Who do you think you are, 3D? you think you can just waltz in here and take all our money and make us all go crosseyed, and we'll just let you? Well you have another thing coming! And that thing is the mass realisation that you're just a weak excuse for making it feel like people are actually interacting with things, when in reality they are just sitting around getting fat and possibly dumbened by the film they are watching - which is the way films were originally intended to be viewed! So you can get your blue and your red and whatever else you've got there and just shove it all up your arse.
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #5 on: 07-23-2011 16:56 »

Obviously I agree, however, apparently the tide really is turning.

More people went to see Dispicable Me in 2D than in 3D. 
More people went to see Pirates Of The Carribean 4 in 2D than in 3D.

Filmmakers say that 3D loses four footcandles of light, which, if you'd gone to see Harry Potter 7b in 3D, will have made the image so dark it would be practically non-existant.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #6 on: 07-23-2011 17:11 »

Even worse I heard is the new Transformers in 3D, the movie is already too dark in 2D wink
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #7 on: 07-23-2011 17:22 »

"Footcandles" is my new favorite unit of measurement. It was "Pascals," but not anymore.
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #8 on: 07-23-2011 18:07 »

I had to look it up, just to make sure I'd heard it right.

Apparently also, theatres are increasing the number of 2D showings of Harry Potter 7b than 3D, as the people seem to be voting with their feet, which is always good to hear.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #9 on: 07-23-2011 18:11 »

Don't mind, but I really don't see why everyone is getting so obsessed with 3D... Yay it pops out... Now what?
Tweek

UberMod
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #10 on: 07-23-2011 18:12 »

2D; I have no desire to wear 3D glasses over my regular glasses. The only film I've seen in 3D at the cinema was ages ago (Jaws 3D) and it gave me a headache frown
ShepherdofShark

Space Pope
****
« Reply #11 on: 07-23-2011 18:43 »

2D; I have no desire to wear 3D glasses over my regular glasses. The only film I've seen in 3D at the cinema was ages ago (Jaws 3D) and it gave me a headache frown

^This (except for the glasses over glasses bit)^ It was a gimmick in the 80s and it's a gimmick now (not that I've seen a modern film in 3D yet).

What's more annoying is you can see the shots they really want to work in 3D even when you seen them in 2D - eg HP7.2 and all those snapping snake shots.
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #12 on: 07-23-2011 19:19 »

They have the same effect in 2D as in 3D, an object flies towards the camera, the audience will duck.... 

3D wasn't meant to be pointy, it was meant to be immersive, to take the audience into the image, give it depth. 
homerjaysimpson

Space Pope
****
« Reply #13 on: 07-23-2011 19:44 »

3D slowly comes back every 20 to 30 years then slowly goes away. It's a thing it likes to do.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #14 on: 07-23-2011 19:47 »

These glasses fixes all your 3D pains.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #15 on: 07-23-2011 20:01 »

I agree with Hojay. I remember back in 2003 when 3D movies made a minor comeback and it was still with the red and blue glasses. At the time I only remember seeing good 3D done at Disneyworld. I do think 3D works best for animated movies, I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and while it doesn't add anything to the experience I do think this is where the element works best. The opening short 'Night and Day' looked amazing in 3D and I wouldn't want to see it any other way. However that being said I don't think 3D adds anything to a movie experience.

I have a boxset of all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, which comes with a pair of 3D glasses for the film 'Freddy's Dead'. I love watching that in 3D for the cheesy novelty of the film. In the 80's 3D made a ridiculous comeback, at least in Freddy's Dead it's only used for the last 20 minutes compared to Friday the 13th part 3 where it's the entire movie. Those glasses are silly, you can't see anything in color but at the same time the 3D effect is still fun.

No I don't like 3D but I do like it as a novelty. I hate how every film nowadays comes in 3D, it's unnecessary, and I haven't paid to see any movie -except TS3- to see it in 3D.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #16 on: 07-23-2011 20:15 »

I will happily see a film in 3D if it:

1. Was shot in 3D, and not post-converted.

2. Is a film that promises to be a visual spectacle of some sort -be it through lovely animation, kick-ass action sequences or something of that nature.


That said, as a general rule, I like 2D. I think there's a place for 3D, but it shouldn't be the standard. The only 2 films I've seen in 3D that I felt were "must see in 3D" titles were 'Avatar' due to how big a deal it made of its 3D and 'TRON: Legacy' due to how it worked the 3D into its story (much like The Wizard of Oz did with colour). However, 'TRON: Legacy' was a terrible film so I'd recommend not seeing it at all.

I have no desire for a 3D television until they release something more akin to the 3DS. I don't really care about having 3D TV or films in the home, but I do, for some reason, love the idea of 3D video games. Not quite sure why. I haven't played any yet, but I can't imagine they'll disappoint me.


Excluding the 3D re-release of 'The Lion King', the next film I care about seeing in 3D is 'Prometheus', the upcoming 'Alien' spin-off-y/prequel type thing from Ridley Scott. That doesn't come out till next year and I should point out that I go to the cinema as often as I can. I saw 3 films over the last 2 days.
Jezzem

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #17 on: 07-24-2011 03:06 »

3D is like auto-tune for movies.

It annoys me that it's always advertised as this huge revolutionary new thing even though 3D has been around for ages (not to mention the fact that it makes the movie look more like a diorama of 2D images rather than actually looking real).

The whole idea of 3D TV's is stupid because the only time 3D remotely works is when you're in a cinema and the screen is taking up most of your field of vision. When you watch something in 3D on a TV it just looks like the back of the TV is a bit farther away and some things occasionally come closer to the front of the screen.
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #18 on: 07-24-2011 14:37 »

I prefer 2D, but I've only seen one movie at the cinema in 3D which was Avatar. Although I enjoyed it and I thought some of the 3D was good, after a while it started to become more of a hindrance than an enjoyment. I felt a bit uncomfortable and wanted to take the glasses off, but I knew if I did I couldn't continue to watch it properly. I was also slightly disappointed that the 3D wasn't as 3D as I was used to from the 3D rides I'd experienced in various theme parks...

Speaking of 3D rides at theme parks I have experienced a lot and they always tend to be excellent. In particular I thought Terminator 2 3D as Universal Studios used 3D very effectively and it was quite amazing. The objects literally came right at you in front of your eyes to the point that it tricked you into believing you could reach out touch objects in front of you (and I observed several people who did try). The Muppets 3D at Disney Hollywood Studios is another example of excellent use of 3D which really is all round good fun...

After having experienced 3D in these rides and others I had high expectations for the 3D when going into watch Avatar. To my disappointment these expectations were not met and the fun element simply wasnít there. What was left was mediocre although perhaps in places it enhanced some of the visuals, but overall it wasnít worthwhile and Iím sure Iíd have enjoyed it more in 2D without the discomfort of wearing 3D glasses for such a long duration of time. As I left I felt as if I was partially drunk while driving home as my eyes adjusted back to normality. I think 3D works excellently in short 15-25 minute rides, but for a full length feature it just didnít for me, and also the type of 3D used didnít captivate me like the type Iíd experienced beforehand in those such rides...

Add to that the extra cost to watch movies in 3D and the fact it tends to darken the whole screen and it really isnít much of an enticing prospect. I havenít watched a movie in 3D since Avatar. I thought about watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, but when push came to shove I opted against it and watched the 2D showing instead. I still thoroughly enjoyed it in 2D as it was an excellent movie. When something can be so enjoyable in 2D does it really need to be seen in 3D? I think Iíll stick to 3D in theme park rides and stay old skool with 2D at the movies...

On a side note, the 3DS hasnít really captivated me like the original DS did. If the 3D was holographic and came out of the screen then Iíd be impressed, but instead it just seems to add depth to the existing plain and is another example of 3D disappointing me. That said I might purchase a 3DS when the improved version arrives, not because itís 3D, but so that I can play some of the new handheld games that have been released...

Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #19 on: 07-24-2011 17:33 »

Funny thing is, that I went to see Avatar in IMAX 3D, and I think that the image is far more jawdropping in 2D on Blu-Ray.   I think Otis hit on it, by saying that 3D is great for theme-park rides, but that's it, a ride is not cinema.....  I doubt that you're gonna get Terrance Malick, or Woody Allen, doing some parlour room drama in 3D, are you?
Gorky

Space Pope
****
« Reply #20 on: 07-24-2011 17:46 »

2D; I have no desire to wear 3D glasses over my regular glasses.

Hah, that's my main gripe about 3D, too. I'm not cool enough to pull off wearing my clunky normal glasses plus some hideous 3D ones.

But yeah, the only movie I've seen in 3D in theaters was Despicable Me (which is more a result of me 1.) rarely going to the movies at all and 2.) on those rare occasions where I do venture out, only going to movies that are, like, romantic comedies or domestic dramas or dumb girl stuff, which don't tend to be in 3D). It didn't make much use of the possibilities 3D presents (which, like Danny says, is pretty much just having stuff pop out of the screen at you for no reason), and I would have enjoyed it just as much in 2D because the story and animation were still top-notch.

That said, I have a friend who saw the new Harry Potter movie in 3D, and he told me that it makes good use of the technology by being more low-key and playing up, like, differences in perspective in certain scenes. (I also have a friend who went to see Harry Potter in a D-Box, which basically, like, shakes you around in tandem with the action on screen. Combine that with 3D, and you'll wind up with probably the most annoying, nausea-inducing experience one can have in a cinema that's not related to the actual content of a movie.)
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #21 on: 07-24-2011 22:42 »

Opinions seem pretty one-sided in here, all I know is it's still divided amongst directors, Peter Jackson and Spielberg filmed Tintin in 3D, and The Hobbit, but John Favreaus Cowboys and Aliens isn't (but might get a refit), Ridley Scotts Prometheus is in 3D too.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #22 on: 07-25-2011 00:43 »

I think Otis hit on it, by saying that 3D is great for theme-park rides, but that's it, a ride is not cinema.....

I think that there's a lot of crossover. A movie like Transformers 3 for instance, is basically a ride, and therefore the 3D element makes sense to me.

I have no desire to see films in 3D that aren't visual spectacles, as I said.

Quote
I doubt that you're gonna get Terrance Malick, or Woody Allen, doing some parlour room drama in 3D, are you?
Martin Scorcese is a big fan of the medium and intends to use it from now on. He's not quite on their pegging with regards to how low-key their films are, but still, it's worth noting.

And FazeShift, Ridley Scott has said he'll never work in 2D again.

Chris Nolan is against 3D though, but then he seems to think that filming in IMAX is the future. I'm not convinced of that, either.
Morgan_G19

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #23 on: 07-25-2011 03:13 »

2D; I have no desire to wear 3D glasses over my regular glasses. The only film I've seen in 3D at the cinema was ages ago (Jaws 3D) and it gave me a headache frown

Me too. I thought it felt weird having to wear those 3D glasses over the glasses which is sort of a permanent fixture to my face. I'll admit I did enjoy some of them 3D movies like Tangled (but movies like that were actually made in 3D).

I've watched some movies who claimed to be awesome in 3D but sadly not. I do not wish to pay extra 8 moonies for having to wear another ridonkulously over-sized 3D glasses over my regular glasses and watch crappy 3D movie.

I watched Avatar in 3D but because of my stoopid brother's friend who decided to watch the movie with us last minute, I had to sit rather far away from the middle seats. I actually gave up my seat because I heard she loves to ask questions during the movie. So, not only did I have to pay extra for a lousy seat, I didn't really get to enjoy the 3D effects either. I hate it when people can't shut their yap during the movie mad
Zmithy

Professor
*
« Reply #24 on: 07-25-2011 04:05 »

3d gives me double vision, both while watching the film and shortly afterwards... I even *looked* squinty-eyed after coming out of the cinema.
Xanfor

Moderator
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #25 on: 07-25-2011 05:38 »

Twenty-three votes so far and not a single one for 3D. This must be the most unanimous poll in all of PEEL history.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #26 on: 07-25-2011 10:51 »

We should show this poll to filmmakers. Surely that will convince them.
Morgan_G19

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #27 on: 07-25-2011 11:16 »

I doubt our numbers would make much of a difference to those money-grabbing leechers.
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #28 on: 07-25-2011 11:20 »

Obviously, but we represent the broad masses....  laff
Nutmeg1729

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #29 on: 07-25-2011 13:57 »

You said that and 2 people voted for 3D.

Those assholes!
Bend-err

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #30 on: 07-25-2011 14:00 »

Lets find them and rip out their eyes!
Nutmeg1729

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #31 on: 07-25-2011 14:12 »

The 3D may do that eventually... let's just wait, silently.

And then we shall laugh, heartily.
x.Bianca.x

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #32 on: 07-25-2011 14:17 »

3D gives me headaches after a little while. I'm so glad our cinema has started offering the movies in both 2d and 3d, it's a really small cinema, they used to only show the 3d or only show the 2d.
soylentOrange

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #33 on: 07-25-2011 18:28 »

I've only got one working eye.  The other is totally blind, so this 3D crap doesn't even work for me.  I get the same effect as if I wasn't wearing the 3D glasses at all.  That is to say, everything is a blurry, two-dimensional mess.  If this isn't a fad, and the 3D thing is here to stay, it might not be long before I can't watch movies or play video games at all.  
Professor Zoidy

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #34 on: 07-26-2011 00:01 »

Man that blows soylentOrange.

I wear glasses because I'm unfortunately near-sighted due to genetics. With that in mind, while it's not uncomfortable, it's cumbersome to wear TWO pairs of glasses and have them rest in the EXACT place for perfect viewing. I often find myself adjusting them many, many times during any given 3D film. I feel that any film done with CGI is pretty nice to look at in 3D but converted films? No thanks. I hear they ALL blow. I enjoy theme park 3D experiences and 4D experiences like the aforementioned MuppetVision 3D and something like Captain Eo (which is like DBox and IMAX except wicked cool and cheesy) but do not like 3D movies. They're a fun novelty but not something I wish to pay extra for to see every new movie out.
x.Bianca.x

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #35 on: 07-27-2011 08:38 »

The 3ds is the worst thing ever
Melllvar

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #36 on: 07-27-2011 17:22 »

Lets find them and rip out their eyes!

Nah, find them and rip out one of their eyes....
Otis P Jivefunk

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #37 on: 07-27-2011 21:54 »


Mine's not working!...
Juliet

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #38 on: 07-29-2011 08:47 »

I don't mind 3D. as long as my eyes are working
soylentOrange

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #39 on: 07-29-2011 22:41 »

@Otis: you have no idea how hard I laugh at that joke every time I watch Fear of a Bot Planet smile
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.226 seconds with 20 queries.