Reader comments
Talking pictures: For many movies, 3-D is a needless gimmick

Obviouly you just don't get it. Just like some love to watch shows on how to to make quilts, others would cringe at having to watch it. Same with 3d, some actually really enjoy movies in 3d, do you really think you are the only person living on this planet.

I believe you've yet to be convinced. Wait for James Cameron's Avatar. Understand that 3D is only a gimmick to lesser filmmakers who use it as such. 3D is a means of making movies more lifelike, that way movies are not watched but an encounter with a life's experience not your own. If you understood history well enough you'd realize we've always strived for 3D in film, and been setback by the technology. Now with the technology comes the education. Good 3D comes from the talented people who understand it's not a gimmick but another tool for telling your story.

I saw ice age 3D a few days ago and i can tell you via dolby 3D its incredible. I don't understand what you mean by the muted colours. Because dolby has a colour correction added to the server to correct such problems. Like any filter method theres not as much light getting to you eyes but the projector i saw was very bright so it probably counter acted the brightness.

Dolby's 3d spectral division system is the best you can get and its technology is the only one that eliminates ghosting totally. Basically the glasses have 50 film layers that can only decode a particular colour spectrum. Theres a duel colour spectrum wheel attached to the projector before the video chips that breaks the white light back into primary red, green and blue. the left eye image is filtered with RGB 1 spectrum and the right eye image is filtered with RGB 2. When the 3 video chips recombined each RGB video chip with the filtered light is returned to the correct colour. The image looks slightly doubled on screen as it should but the glasses give you perfect 3D. the depth is incredible.

"do you really think you are the only person living on this planet."

Yes, that's exactly what he was saying. When he said: "Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who's not particularly big on 3-D in the first place, though" he wasn't saying that as a way to show that some of his statements might be biased, since he's not a fan of the process and that those who like 3-D more might disagree. No, he was saying: "This is my opinion on 3-D, and since I'm the only person living on this planet it's the only valid opinion."

Very good.

I have to say that I agree with Hicks. 3D at this stage is just a gimmick to try to make movies stand out as new and improved. When the amazing animation of Toy Story, and later, Monsters Inc. and others, came out, it was clearly a big step forward (plus we didn't have to pay extra for it), but I've seen nothing that impressive in the 3D movies so far.

Having never seen a 3D movie until I saw UP, I was really looking forward to it. It was ok, but not even close to the extra 2.50 I paid to watch it in 3D.

Star Wars:The Original Trilogy would rock in 3D! It is cool to see great movies in 3D. 3D does not make movies better but it adds to the fun. They should have done that instead of making worthless and plot less prequels. The Prequels should have never been invented. It ruined the franchise and I was completely disappointed as a real Star Wars fan.

I DONT CARE WHAT THAT STUPID MOVIE GUY SAYS. IM BGOING WITH MY OWN OPINION.YAY ME!!!!!!

I HATE 3d with a major passion. First and foremost, I was born blind in one eye, and although corrective measures were taken to give me partial vision, the so called 3d effect actually gives me a headache, even with today's technology.

That being said, I agree that there is no need for using 3d. It is NOT the future of cinema, because the 3d effect is artificial and not natural. Cinema uses a wonderful film process that makes the film come alive. The 3d glasses kill that effect.

Until a way can be found to give us the 3d, or rather the in person effect without having to wear anything on our faces, it will always be a gimmick.

Ciao

I like the new 3D technologies, at least for CGI films like Up, Monsters, and Coraline. I bring up Coraline especially, where I think the effect was used to great advantage in several scenes.

On the other hand, I'll agree it's not worth an extra $2 or $2.50.

I agree with "Gives me a headache." Even thought I have very good vision in both eyes, I can't stand to sit through a recently released 3D movie - I will get a migraine strength headache in just minutes. (The really old ones didn't bother me, for some reason.) So I will just not see a movie at all if it's only being shown in 3D in my area.