The Dwindling Novelty Of 3-D

[Jane Doe]

The evolution of 3-D in the cinemas this year has got to the point now where almost every film is available. Add to that the fact that over here in the UK our major satellite TV provider has launched dedicated channels showing major sporting events and most electrical stores are pushing the sales of 3-D TV sets. What bearing does anyone think this will have on the current attractions at the park? My early experiences of 3-D were Jaws through those red and blue glasses and were pretty poor, so seeing Philharmagic and the Muppets at WDW made me think this was likely to be the future of attractions. But thinking about it now, is anyone who turns up to these attractions not going to feel a little bit short-changed?

 

[Monty]

I'm just hoping the 3D fad passes soon... :lookaroun

As a glasses wearer and colour-blind, 3D just doesn't work for me.

 

[JustInTime]

Well, thankfully the 3D fad does not use red/blue glasses anymore. The clear ones are much nicer. But honestly, I love 3D. I don't really see the hate for it.

 

[CaptainWinter]

The evolution of 3-D in the cinemas this year has got to the point now where almost every film is available. Add to that the fact that over here in the UK our major satellite TV provider has launched dedicated channels showing major sporting events and most electrical stores are pushing the sales of 3-D TV sets. What bearing does anyone think this will have on the current attractions at the park? My early experiences of 3-D were Jaws through those red and blue glasses and were pretty poor, so seeing Philharmagic and the Muppets at WDW made me think this was likely to be the future of attractions. But thinking about it now, is anyone who turns up to these attractions not going to feel a little bit short-changed?

I think what you suggest is right, the ubiquity of 3D does take some attractions down a peg, for sure. Philharmagic and Muppets offer giant screens, which does make the 3D much more impressive than the usual, so there is still that.

In my opinion, 2D is enough D for most movies. I saw Up in 2D and 3D and preferred 2D. Everything seemed miniature in 3D, like I was watching a bunch of wind-up toys running around.

[Now I'll go on a tangent. As far as attractions go, there is absolutely no substitute for *real motion*. I think simulator rides (and many of these use 3D for enhancement), while they can be fun, are such a far cry from swooping and dipping around. Long live tracks!]

So, I'm not a huge 3D fan.

 

[Fable McCloud]

I'm just hoping the 3D fad passes soon... :lookaroun

As a glasses wearer 3D just doesn't work for me.

I couldn't be happier that you said this.

My BF and I are both not crazy about 3D, since we wear glasses and the 3D ones just won't stay on our faces. Or if they do, they push our real glasses up into the bridge of the nose, which hurts like hell.

We saw Avatar in 3D, and while it did make everything extra pretty, the movie was equally visually impressive in 2D on my tv at home. We've already decided that we're seeing Tangled in 2D, the way movies were meant to be seen. Same with the new Harry Potter. I'm not paying an extra 5 dollars for a pair of 3D glasses that hurt my face all so I can see the same movie with no real added bonus except for the stuff on screen coming at me.:king:

 

[JustInTime]

I couldn't be happier that you said this.

My BF and I are both not crazy about 3D, since we wear glasses and the 3D ones just won't stay on our faces. Or if they do, they push our real glasses up into the bridge of the nose, which hurts like hell.

We saw Avatar in 3D, and while it did make everything extra pretty, the movie was equally visually impressive in 2D on my tv at home. We've already decided that we're seeing Tangled in 2D, the way movies were meant to be seen. Same with the new Harry Potter. I'm not paying an extra 5 dollars for a pair of 3D glasses that hurt my face all so I can see the same movie with no real added bonus except for the stuff on screen coming at me.:king:

Hmmm. I wear massive Buddy Holly style glasses and the 3D ones fit over them so perfectly! They never bother me. And Tangled was made in 3D, so that is how it was meant to be seen. But I gotta say, I am glad Harry Potter is NOT going to be in 3D. It wasn't made in 3D and it doesn't need it IMO.

 

[Master Yoda]

IMHO the turning point in 3D will be when it can be effectively done without glasses. Nintendo's next DS handheld will be 3D without glasses and Toshiba is releasing a 3D TV that will not require glasses. Once this can be done in a theater I think 3D will become more accepted.

Personally I like 3D when it is done correctly (eg Avatar, Toy Story) When it is shoehorned into a movie (Clash of the Titans) it can produce some terrible results.

 

[hth1917]

[Now I'll go on a tangent. As far as attractions go, there is absolutely no substitute for *real motion*. I think simulator rides (and many of these use 3D for enhancement), while they can be fun, are such a far cry from swooping and dipping around. Long live tracks!]

I agree, which is why I feel that TSMM is an overrated ride. I prefer Buzz Lightyear. Of course, Men in Black Alien Attack is superior to both.

 

[Kamikaze]

IMHO the turning point in 3D will be when it can be effectively done without glasses. Nintendo's next DS handheld will be 3D without glasses and Toshiba is releasing a 3D TV that will not require glasses. Once this can be done in a theater I think 3D will become more accepted.

Personally I like 3D when it is done correctly (eg Avatar, Toy Story) When it is shoehorned into a movie (Clash of the Titans) it can produce some terrible results.

Exactly. I get crazy headaches when trying to sit through a full 3D movie. The 10 minute shows at WDW don't bother me, but 2 hours of staring through those glasses does.

As for the Toshiba TV - it won't work. 12 and 20 inch models only, and it only works if you're very, very close to it - within 3 feet. The tech they are using doesn't scale up well, so they can't make it bigger without losing even more range. Sounds like a serious flop to me.

I agree, which is why I feel that TSMM is an overrated ride. I prefer Buzz Lightyear. Of course, Men in Black Alien Attack is superior to both.

Because TSM is a simulator? What exactly are you agreeing with?

 

[JustInTime]

IMHO the turning point in 3D will be when it can be effectively done without glasses. Nintendo's next DS handheld will be 3D without glasses and Toshiba is releasing a 3D TV that will not require glasses. Once this can be done in a theater I think 3D will become more accepted.

Personally I like 3D when it is done correctly (eg Avatar, Toy Story) When it is shoehorned into a movie (Clash of the Titans) it can produce some terrible results.

Star Tour will be in 3d without glass. Or so I have been told.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I think that what separates a 3D attraction from a movie is the effects that take place as well. It's Tough to be a Bug is more impressive because of the immersion that it offers, as opposed to just its 3D qualities. I think that as long as you create a 3D experience and not just a movie, they will still do well in the parks.

 

[Kamikaze]

Star Tour will be in 3d without glass. Or so I have been told.

You've been told wrong. They are probably 10 years out on having the tech to do that to a screen the size of the front one in the ST sims. The only way to pull it off currently is to have multiple translucent projections layered in a row with different projectors for each layer. Doesn't look that great though, so I can't imagine good old George allowing that.

 

[Master Yoda]

Exactly. I get crazy headaches when trying to sit through a full 3D movie. The 10 minute shows at WDW don't bother me, but 2 hours of staring through those glasses does.

As for the Toshiba TV - it won't work. 12 and 20 inch models only, and it only works if you're very, very close to it - within 3 feet. The tech they are using doesn't scale up well, so they can't make it bigger without losing even more range. Sounds like a serious flop to me.

True but it is at least a step in the right direction. Generation one technology is almost always underwhelming but I have faith that they will eventually make it work.

Star Tour will be in 3d without glass. Or so I have been told.

I have not heard that and considering the problems that Kamikaze mentioned I doubt that ST 2.0 will be glassless 3d as the screen is simply too large for the current technology.

 

[rsoxguy]

I have not attended a movie theater in a very long time. Does the popularity of the 3D effect in films today "cheapen" the effect when you see 3D films at WDW?

 

[bgraham34]

I have only ever seen 1 film in 3d and that was Avatar. I really hate 3d except for when I am in Disney. Its over hyped and over priced otherwise. Its one thing to 3D in the theaters but when you bring it home it completely loses its uniqueness.

 

[Master Yoda]

I have not attended a movie theater in a very long time. Does the popularity of the 3D effect in films today "cheapen" the effect when you see 3D films at WDW?

I wouldn't say it cheapens it but it does diminish the novelty or uniqueness of it a little bit.

 

[rsoxguy]

I wouldn't say it cheapens it but it does diminish the novelty or uniqueness of it a little bit.

Your words aptly replace mine to describe what I meant. I really enjoy the novelty of the 3D effect at WDW, particularly in Philharmagic. I'm glad that I have not been exposed to 3D in any other venue.

 

[ChrisFL]

Regarding the 3D movies being released right now...I think many of them were probably filmed for 2D, meaning they weren't designed as having "in your face" effects like you see in the theme park 3D movies...so there might still be a difference.

I do think that it might take things down a peg, however for example, there's still some movies being shown at Disney parks that aren't 3D at all, and people still watch them (ok, except for the Norway movie )

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I have not attended a movie theater in a very long time. Does the popularity of the 3D effect in films today "cheapen" the effect when you see 3D films at WDW?

Depends.

The 3D attractions are really supposed to pop-out at and over you. The movie theatre on the other hand... not so much.

For most of the 3D movies I've seen, the effect has been so subtle that I can't even notice. It looks like a regular movie except it's blurry, with dim colours, I'm wearing goofy glasses, and I feel like an idiot for paying more.

The Polar Express was the first one I saw in 3D I think. I loved it. A lot of it was just added depth. Snowflakes falling looked really cool. But then that rollercoast-type scene just added to the fun.

Then I saw The Nightmare Before Christmas. Didn't have any of those "fun" effects. But the added depth of field was great.

Strangely, the short before Toy Story 3 worked a lot better in 3D than Toy Story 3 did.

And.... that was about it. Everything else I really haven't noticed at all.

I think it has potential. And I prefer it when it works well. But, often it's 3D in name only.

 

[Master Yoda]

Your words aptly replace mine to describe what I meant. I really enjoy the novelty of the 3D effect at WDW, particularly in Philharmagic. I'm glad that I have not been exposed to 3D in any other venue.

That might be a good thing as the 3D in movies like Avatar are far better than what you will find in Disney.