3D belongs to theme parks, not movies

More and more movies are in 3D which takes away the wonder of 3D in theme parks attractions.

From Daniel Etcheberry
Posted May 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Some movies like Avatar and the animated features are fine in 3D, but the rest do not need to be in 3D to be good.

Theme parks attractions, on the other hand, last just a few minutes, so they need all kind of gimmicks (including 3D) to make it work.

Spider man at IOA works great with 3D; Pirates of the Caribbean's 3D did not add anything to the movie.

From Andrew Mooney
Posted May 27, 2011 at 11:36 AM
As you said animated movies could use that extra dimension. I'm not sure what to call them but normal movies (?) ie real actors don't need that kind of gimmicks. They already appear 3D so the added effect doesn't do very much.

However I do believe basic 3D attractions aren't the best anymore. Give me Shrek 4D or It's Tough to Be A Bug any day as that kind of interaction currently isn't feasible (cost) at normal cinemas.

From Formula 40
Posted May 27, 2011 at 12:58 PM
These 3D movies are the biggest waste of money to me. It's not even that good. The 3D/4D offered at theme parks is way better b/c stuff actually comes out of the screen. The 3D doesn't make these movies any better.

From Joshua Counsil
Posted May 27, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Your point being?

I'd say this is a good thing. Now that 3D imagery is somewhat tedious, theme parks are going to have to up the ante. Hopefully, they'll stop making the same old 3D films and resort to something innovative, instead.

From Dan Babbitt
Posted May 27, 2011 at 7:02 PM
I like 3D in movies and at the Theme Parks. Because I think they are completely different!

Movies: At the theater you get more depth and "realistic" look at experience and coupled with the sound makes a great experience.

Theme Parks: Here you get a completely different experience with the gags, jokes and things popping out you. Here theater adds 4D elements that you cant get at movie theater as in water, bubble and other effects, rocking theater and chairs and even animatronics. Some cases, like Star Tours II and Toy Story Midway Mania, they include rides which is changing the industry!

From Anthony Murphy
Posted May 28, 2011 at 7:44 AM
Animation (which Avitar falls into) are probably the best in 3D. Tangled was stunning in 3D also.

From Nick Markham
Posted May 28, 2011 at 8:22 AM
I think Tron was great in IMAX3D and I hope Disney takes that into mind whenever they plan an attraction for it.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted May 28, 2011 at 8:26 AM
I want to know when it became a rule that every other movie that comes out must be in 3D.

From Daniel Etcheberry
Posted May 28, 2011 at 5:21 PM

It became a rule when the movie studios and theaters decided that they would make more money by charging a few extra dollars for the 3D presentations.

At my multiplex: 10$ regular viewing
14$ 3D
16$ Imax 3D

It is the SAME movie!

From Russell Meyer
Posted May 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM
If people would stop paying for crappy post-production 3-D movies, maybe Hollywood would stop making them. As long as 3-D keeps making money at the box office, they will continue to keep cranking them out.

I think we've gone beyond 3-D being strictly for theme parks though. For goodness sake, you can watch movies and TV in 3-D at home now. It's up to theme parks to continue to push the envelope to give guests an experience they can't get at home or at the local multiplex.

From Nick Markham
Posted May 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM
I don't know why it is a big deal. If you don't like 3D, don't go. There are many people, including me, who enjoy seeing movies in IMAX or 3D. There is no reason to take it away just because a couple people disagree.

From Scott B
Posted May 31, 2011 at 5:15 AM
Here is the issue with movie theater 3D, you are essentially paying extra for a darker image. Those polarized lenses in the glasses actually filter out some of the light. Lift up your glasses during a 3D showing and you'll see the picture is bright. Now put on those glasses and you'll see it is darker.

Now why would you want to trade the bright vibrancy of colorful animation for some stuff popping out of the screen?!

The thing that disappoints me is how prevalent 3D films are. Yesterday my inlaws came by to watch my girls so my wife and I could catch the new Pirates movie. It was on 3 screens, 2 of them were in 3D. We saw it in 3D because we would have to wait 90 minutes to see the non-3D one. So I paid $26 (a matinee!) to see a darker, blurrier image. Thanks Hollywood?

From Nick Markham
Posted May 31, 2011 at 6:22 AM
^You still aren't forced to watch 3D. It is completely an option. And as for the image, it really doesn't look any darker if you were to take you glasses off. I've tried each of the 15 3D movies I have seen in theaters.

From Scott B
Posted May 31, 2011 at 8:13 AM

You are 100% right. You don't like 3D, then don't see it. I agree. My point was that it has been getting harder and harder. Our local multiplex seems to have outfitted over half of their screens with 3D projection. They had one Pirate screen that only had two 2D showings. For example, we were able to see a movie at 12:00 (it was when our babysitters aka my in-laws were free). They had Pirates 3D at 12:00, 12:30 and Pirates 2D at 4:00 and 10:00 (that's it for the 2D). As parents that can't always dictate when our free time comes up, that is a major bummer. Our theater is 16 screens, supposedly 9 of which are 3D. What happens if and when the rest get outfitted? Just wait for the Blu Ray?

Oh and there definitely is a darkening of the image because of the polarizing lenses in the digital projectors as well as the glasses. I have seen articles that have stated that a 3D film can lose up to 70% of its brightness. Apparently these 3D projectors don't have the illumination chops and theater owners don't seem to care. Ever notice that in most theaters, the largest screens are never 3D? That is because most of the projectors can't handle them. To some people it isn't bothersome. But to me, it is a major annoyance. For example, the movie Up. I saw Up twice in the theater. The first time it was it was in 3D and looked muted. The second time it was in 2D and was vibrant.

I'm not saying 3D can't be great. It depends on the theater and their willingness to go the extra mile in giving theater goers an amazing experience. It also depends on the creators of the film. For example, like the movie or not, no one can deny that Avatar in 3D was awesome! The thing is, James Cameron is a major techie and not many people are as good at shot composition as he is (the man just knew how to do 3D). So that is why you get lots of poorly done 3D. Just let Cameron direct every 3D film, problem solved.

Oh and on a sidenote, IMAX 3D uses a different process and is all around awesome. I think if I could, I would watch every movie at an IMAX theater.

From Russell Meyer
Posted June 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM
It's a shame IMAX is not really IMAX anymore with most theaters retrofitting auditoriums with screens that are 1/3 of the size of the true IMAX standard. It's just another grab for cash, and an attempt to make the formerly standard movie experience extinct.

From M. Ryan Traylor
Posted June 2, 2011 at 6:17 PM
Russel brings up two GREAT points. Two points the common theater attendee doesn't get.

First, lets talk about 3D. The only true 3D are films SHOT IN 3D. This requires stereoscopic motion cameras. The majority of films are post 3D conversions. Pirates 4, Avatar, and the upcoming Transformers were/are shot in 3D. (Although Transformers will have a few post convert shots)

Animation lends itself to a post convert for obvious reasons, but since EVERYTHING is in focus generally on an animated film, it's not that bad. PIXAR is the only animation that I've seen to have out of focus foreground/background elements.

The surcharge is making a killing for the studios. I just ask that patrons do their research and not see the films that are post converted. (Drive Angry, Last Airbender)

Point Two: IMAX

Any IMAX screen that is in a refurbished theater, it's not truly IMAX. They removed the first few rows of seats, and stretched the screen from floor to ceiling. It's IMAX-Lite, or IMAX-Zero, or Diet IMAX.

True IMAX is has to follow certain requirements. Standard size is about 75' x 55'. It's a HUGE screen. I can name a few true screens in the country that I've been to: USH-Citywalk AMC, Houston Museum Natural Science, Grand Canyon, Richmond Science Museum, The Bridge - Los Angeles.

And even then, you may not be watching a movie shot in IMAX. The great science, history, etc documentaries like Everest are shot in IMAX. It's a large film format. There's a documentary on the Everest IMAX movie and it's crazy to see them carry the camera to the top.

I just hope that more people do the research and understand what they are really watching when they go to the theater. And not get rip-offed with the ticket prices.


Until someone raises the topic of piracy.

From Nick Markham
Posted June 3, 2011 at 6:03 AM
It is true. I am lucky enough to live in the top movie-grossing state in America: Utah. Yes it is a surprise, but Utah always has many of its theaters on the top 10 lists for most money grossed from each blockbuster that comes out. When Harry Potter 7 Part 1 came out, the top 5 theaters in the US were made of Utah theaters. We just seem to all love movies.

And because of this, every one of our soon to be four IMAX theaters are full sized and absolutly stunning.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted June 3, 2011 at 7:41 AM
Nick,that doesn't surprise me. I have a buddy, a big movie fan, who lives in Ogden, and he tells me there just aren't that many theaters in the state, relative to say, the NY/NJ area where I am. So yeah, what the industry calls the "per-screen average" will be higher if there are fewer screens.

From Nick Markham
Posted June 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM
^ I don't know about that. We have many theaters, some of which with more advanced technology than most movie theaters in the country.

Utah has actually always been considered one of the top movie-watching states, especially with the high number of incredible films that have been produced here, and the world-renowned Sundance Film festival.

From Daniel Etcheberry
Posted June 4, 2011 at 8:40 AM
The new Spy Kids movie is advertised as 4D. I wonder if the seats will move and water will be sprayed over us.

From M. Ryan Traylor
Posted June 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Spy Kids will be using Smell-O-Vision. I'm not joking.

From M. Ryan Traylor
Posted June 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM
You get a card with scratch and sniff numbers on them. When the number appears on screen, you scratch and sniff. Who knows what it could be. Could smell a monte-cristo sandwich, sweaty feet, dole-whip, or manure.

From Nick Markham
Posted June 5, 2011 at 8:18 PM
^ Areyou serious? Anybody who thinks that is a worthwhile movie experience is crazy!

Now, there are DBOX motion theaters that are actually quite popular here and apparently move very well to the films.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted June 6, 2011 at 2:35 AM
The concept of Smell-O-Vision is far from new. The 1981 (I think) John Waters film, Polyester, was released in Odorama. Same concept, a scratch-and-sniff card. If you know Waters' work, you can imagine how offensive some of those smells were.

From M. Ryan Traylor
Posted June 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM
Smell-o-vision is old. Very old. And dumb.

This discussion has been archived, and is not accepting additional responses.