Erk!

[bunn]

Just clicked on link for The Hobbit movie, and discovered that Vue cinemas have it all ready set up in their Coming Soon section - in 3D. But not in not-3D. The only cinema listed on their site as showing it in 2D is in Birmingham.

This must, I hope, be a booking engine glitch? I have seen 1 film in 3D, and it was enough to convince me that I - never - want to see another one. 3D does baaaaad things to the strange part of my brain that becomes direly nauseous if given the illusion of motion while sitting still - the part that means I cannot play any first-person perspective computer game, or watch films that make extensive use of the 'shot on a hand held cam' conceit.

I want to see this film! I want to enjoy it! I do not want to have to take a bucket and spend the whole time squinting at it sideways!

Comments

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I hate 3D intensely, except for iMax nature documentaries about extinct animals and occasionally animated movies, which as you might imagine is a very small subset of movies. Mostly it's gratuitous, makes everything murky, and is uncomfortable over glasses as well as nausea-inducing for a large percentage of people. Filmmakers and theaters are pushing it for profit reasons, but I'm not convinced the public really wants it that much.

I will be very cranky if it's a choice of seeing The Hobbit in 3D or waiting for DVD...

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I don't think we have IMAX anywhere near, so I have yet to encounter that. The one thing I did see in 3D was Avatar, and I was a bit meh about the whole 3D thing even before it started giving me nausea :-/

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

Mind, I imprinted on the dome IMAXes, not the ones that are just big screens. They're also often bad for people prone to movie-induced nausea, but no one's trying to replace ALL MOVIES with them.

(I hated Avatar the movie so much I could not comment on the 3D, except I guess in general 3D doesn't blow me away. There's some argument that filmmakers are treating 3D like 2D, i.e. keeping the shallow planes of focus instead of trying to replicate the 100% clarity of the real world that the human eye sees, but I'm not sure even taking more advantage of the medium would help. Those shallow planes of focus get used so much in story-telling. Plus, you know, glasses, nausea, gimmicks.)

[bunn.livejournal.com]

At the time, I thought Avatar was just a bit predictable and tedious, but now I've had time to mull it over, I'm coming down on the side of 'creepy and a bit ick'.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Current 3D technology can't actually replicate the full 3D effect, enabling you to see details away from the main action in 3D. In fact, it wouldn't be a good thing; one of the jobs a director does is to use focus to make you look where you are supposed to look for the purposes of telling the story. One of the problems with 3D is that you tend to be looking at the tech - I certainly was when I saw Avatar (dreadful if pretty movie) - so you actually notice what is out of focus.

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

For typical filming, no, but for movies that are animated or largely CG, they can. I agree with you about focus, but people who actually like 3D have suggested there's unexplored territory as far as not sticking rigidly to 2D film conventions. And I do think it's a little weird in 3D that's supposed to be more immersive and "lifelike" to retain something so unnatural--I could see how it would interfere with feeling like you're really there.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I never get a really there feeling from 3D cinema. In fact, I find it makes it less immersive and more artificial.

If I want to see a really there dramatic production in 3D I go to the theatre.

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too! I don't think we're the target audience, somehow...