?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Erk!

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!

Tags:

Comments

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )
ozisim
12th Nov, 2012 14:02 (UTC)
I share your frustration.
Am blind in one eye... 3D movies are a boring waste of money for me.
I have problems watching them through the glasses with my good eye, so I end up having to take them off so I don't get a massive headache... which means that the film is a lot blurrier than usual, and rarely has good dialogue or soundtrack to make up for it.
*sigh*
I'm very lucky that my husband is understanding.
bunn
12th Nov, 2012 23:39 (UTC)
Boring waste of money is exactly it! It annoys me to have all this tech for something I end up watching as if through a pane smears in Vaseline.
ozisim
14th Nov, 2012 11:58 (UTC)
Yep!

though IMAX is worse... just because it's bigger doesn't make it better! - in face it is usually worse, because you sit further away from the screen!
And is even more expensive than 3D.
Also - I have NO peripheral vision...
...so I end up walking out with a headache and a cricked neck.
wellinghall
12th Nov, 2012 14:06 (UTC)
It's got to be a glitch ... hasn't it? Yes, it has! I hope ...
adaese
12th Nov, 2012 15:31 (UTC)
Odeon seem to be doing it in 2-D. Showcase aren't saying, at least anywhere I can find on their website.
bunn
12th Nov, 2012 15:47 (UTC)
I hope it's just Vue's website needing a kick! The nearest Odeon is Exeter, which would be rather a trek just to see a film, but I suppose it's closer than Birmingham!
lil_shepherd
12th Nov, 2012 14:08 (UTC)
I hate 3D - but there is a tendency among certain film-makers to try and make you watch some movies in 3D. Jackson is a big convert to the idea.

I wonder how many 2D 'prints' are available to cinemas, as Vue are generally good about getting in the 2D audience.
bunn
12th Nov, 2012 23:39 (UTC)
I'm hoping it's a booking engine glitch rather than policy!
lil_shepherd
13th Nov, 2012 05:38 (UTC)
Checking on my local Vue, they do have The Hobbit - 2D up but no dates yet. And they only have the preview dates up for the 3D version. It may be that it will only be available for preview in 3D.
carmarthen
12th Nov, 2012 16:36 (UTC)
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
12th Nov, 2012 23:42 (UTC)
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
13th Nov, 2012 02:30 (UTC)
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
13th Nov, 2012 15:02 (UTC)
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
13th Nov, 2012 15:29 (UTC)
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
13th Nov, 2012 16:14 (UTC)
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
13th Nov, 2012 16:52 (UTC)
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.
(no subject) - carmarthen - 13th Nov, 2012 23:49 (UTC) - Expand
andrewducker
12th Nov, 2012 17:47 (UTC)
You _could_ buy two pairs of these and then switch over one of the lenses, so that one pair of glasses has two "left" lenses, and one has two "right" lenses, which means that it will look 2D to you.

A bit of a pain, but might work out cheaper than driving huge distances for the 2D version!
bunn
12th Nov, 2012 23:44 (UTC)
I'm still hoping it might be a booking system glitch rather than a policy. But if we are moving to a nightmare* world of enforced 3D perhaps Glasses of Correctitude would be a wise investment.

*well, OK - bit of an overstatement really. 'Mildly annoying' would probably be more accurate.
andrewducker
13th Nov, 2012 09:52 (UTC)
I really hope things don't go that way. I love 3D, but there are enough people out there that don't like it (or cope with it) that there should be showings for them too!
(Deleted comment)
bunn
12th Nov, 2012 23:54 (UTC)
Hmmm - I'd have to order fast though for them to get to the UK in time... I think I may just take the gamble that it's a booking system error. Surely they wouldn't want to annoy SO many people...?

As to the three films - I am SO on for that (particularly as I believe they are putting in much of the Appendices to LOTR as additional content). Even having to watch in 3D will probably not prevent me from going...
lil_shepherd
13th Nov, 2012 05:40 (UTC)
One of the worst things about 3D is the lack of light and colour saturation - putting on glasses is just going to make that worse...
(Deleted comment)
bunn
13th Nov, 2012 15:04 (UTC)
Well, I'm not ruling them out. We have a serious shortage of cinemas within reasonable reach down here in the toe end of the country, so if the local one did decide to go all-3D, it could be glasses or wait for the DVD every time.
jane_somebody
24th Nov, 2012 21:49 (UTC)
One of the worst things about 3D is the lack of light

This this this. I have a large Fuchs' spot over the central vision of one eye (meaning I only have stereopsis peripherally, so 3D is a waste of time for me anyway) which *also* means I have a lot less light coming in anyway, so add in the 3D lack-of-light effect and the whole thing is so dark it's like squinting through treacle. (I've only seen one 3D film, Clash of the Titans, which was enough to know I never want to see another.)
huinare
12th Nov, 2012 20:22 (UTC)
I've never seen a 3D film and don't know that I'd care to. At least, I wouldn't want to see something like The Hobbit without knowing whether I passionately hate 3D.

And anyway, I never adjusted to that newfangled computer animation Pixar stuff, and still grump about how in my day we had nice flat animation that talented people drew by hand. Which kind of suggests I might be saying the same thing about 2D films if they were to go the way of the dodo.

Hopefully your local theater is just under some mistaken assumption that the 3D will be more popular and decided to get the showtimes for that in order before dealing with the regularD.
bunn
12th Nov, 2012 23:56 (UTC)
I hope so! It's a national chain and only one cinema in the whole country was down as showing 2D, so I'm hoping they just haven't loaded up the timetable yet.

3d is all gimmick, no value so far as I can see. :-/
huinare
13th Nov, 2012 18:07 (UTC)
I certainly hope this situation amends itself. IMO, it would be incredibly unwise of them to make the traditional format that hard to view.
carmarthen
13th Nov, 2012 02:31 (UTC)
And anyway, I never adjusted to that newfangled computer animation Pixar stuff, and still grump about how in my day we had nice flat animation that talented people drew by hand.

ME TOO.

I've enjoyed some of Pixar's movies quite a lot, but it's despite the animation, not because of it. :-/
huinare
13th Nov, 2012 18:08 (UTC)
Yes! "Despite, not because of" is precisely my feeling about the Pixar-type films I've seen and liked reasonably well.
( 29 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

July 2018
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner