# How do you feel about the Hobbit being in 3D?



## Black Dragon

Personally, I feel that 3D is a gimmick which can detract from good storytelling.  Still, I don't mind it on occasion if it's done right.


----------



## Kelise

Personally I can't stand 3D and I avoid it whenever possible. Still, living in a small town means that sometimes it's the only ption, so despite the fact I try to avoid it, I've still seen a large handful of 3D movies...

And to date, the best 3D I've seen was in the Doctor Who Experience in London. It worked there. I'm guessing it works in rides in disneyland also. I'm yet to see a film where it's added anything at all, and yes, I saw Avatar. Having half the bird out of frame ruins the 3D experience for me, somehow 

So I agree, it's a gimmick. I'm sure The Hobbit will be one of The Better Ones, such as Avatar was with the ash falling, at least...

But I still won't be seeing it in 3D if I can help it.


----------



## Map the Dragon

Old 3D technique used to give me motion sickness; I had allergies too when I was kid - I felt like Paul from The Wonder Years.

The new 3D stuff, like Avatar, is much improved. I loved Avatar in 3D and don't think it would have had as good of an effect had I watched it in normal format. 

That being said, I am not sure about The Hobbit in 3D. I like the new effects, but I also am a dedicated loyalist to the feel of Jackson's LOTR films. I guess we'll see.


----------



## sashamerideth

Not something I tell people, but I am blind in one eye, so any of the 3d effects are no good to me. I don't like the fad and hope that they stop shoving the dreck down our gullet until we like it.


----------



## Behelit

3D is a gimmick, I don't care for it. The Hobbit will be seen in 2D. We need SMELL-O-VISION!


----------



## Joe the Gnarled

They thought TV was a gimmick when it came out.  Thought people would get tired of staring at those little boxes all day...

“Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”
--Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946


----------



## Black Dragon

One of the main difficulties with 3D catching on is the glasses.  If the technology ever evolves to the point that glasses are no longer necessary (especially for home viewing), it may reach a much broader audience.

The other problem is that the technology makes some people ill.  My wife is an example of this.  I took her to see Coraline in 3D, and she became nauseous.  She ended up watching much of the movie with the glasses off, which was a less than satisfying experience.

3D has also been a big push for home theaters.  The issue with that is that it requires most people to purchase a new HD TV that is 3D compatible.  We purchased a beautiful 50" HD TV a little over three years ago, and we love it.  I can't imagine replacing it for any reason in the near future.


----------



## Behelit

Joe the Gnarled said:


> They thought TV was a gimmick when it came out.  Thought people would get tired of staring at those little boxes all day...
> 
> “Television won’t last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”
> --Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946



Television was a gimmick, it was and is just a visual form of communication and entertainment. Back when communications technology was still relatively primitive, of course tv seemed like a gimmick when its black n white with like 6 channels. Many people probably DID get tired of staring at a plywood box, that could very well be why we are where we are today with television sets and hundreds if not thousands of channels.

3D is just another degree at which that visual is perceived. It IS currently a gimmick because it doesn't offer much right now. When 3D = holographic displays THEN it will start to impress. While displays remain on a 2d "canvas" then it will remain a gimmick.


----------



## Ophiucha

I don't know if it will really enhance my viewing experience in any way, but honestly, as a frequent movie goer, much as I hate 3D movies, I am just so used to them that I barely can muster up the will to give a damn anymore.


----------



## PandoraBox

It has to be done right. Granted not everything I care to see in 3D. I still prefer to have freedom of choice in that department.


----------



## Meg the Healer

I'm not a fan of the 3D. If I wanted to watch something in 3D - I'd go to theatre.


----------



## Ravana

I chose option #3, but only because you didn't include "I think 3D is pointless and distracting, and it hurts my eyes to watch it."

Even calling it "3D" is deceptive. Yes, there is an illusion of more than a single depth on the screen–but that's also the problem: there are _two_ depths on the screen. The technology is far from being able to provide a sense of continuous perspective at any distance. Well, that's not entirely true: you can get that sense… by looking at a normal, _non_-3D image on a flat screen; then, the objects that are more distant from the camera also appear more distant from your viewpoint. Using 3D simply emphasizes the fact that you're looking at a flat image, by presenting you two flat images, one superimposed on the other. Far from making it seem _more_ "real" to me, it completely destroys my ability to see it as anything _other_ than flat images.


----------



## fcbkid15

This depends. Nowadays they are putting every movie in 3D, when only some should. I think that animated movies are great in 3D, it flows and works better with purely animated movies. Take kung fu panda 2 or how to train your dragon, both animated, and me and my family loved the 3D. But it only works good with some live action films. Ones with little to no cgi dont work well. The depth is there, it looks better, but things popping out at you aren't as good. But with cgi heavy films the 3D is awesome. Nevertheless i see most movies in 3D, the theater i go to is very cheap, only 75 cents extra for a 3D movie. It doesn't bother me. But anyways the hobbit! I would love to see this in 3D it seems it would be awesome. Lord of the rings in 3D, i just can't say anything else, i don't know what to say.


----------



## Shanatos

I work at a movie theatre where we don't have 3D at all. 

The fad kind of irritates me because now we have people that come in and complain as if the movie is TOTALLY RUINED because it is 2D. I literally heard someone ask, "What's the point?"

Because movies until now were just pointless all along.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I don't like watching movies wearing sunglasses, and honestly don't think the effect itself is ultimately worth the effort. So, I prefer my movies the old fashioned way, thanks.


----------



## Graham Irwin

I think it'll be 3-D-lightful.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I've seen enough movies in 3D to determine that I don't usually enjoy them any more than I enjoy 2D movies. It's a gimmick, which doesn't mean it's not fun once in a while, but most of the time it doesn't really improve the experience.


----------



## sashamerideth

3d movies give me a headache. I don't know why, but it does.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Steerpike

Lame.

/10char


----------



## soulless

I'm not overly bothered about it, and will see both Hobbit films in regular flat 2D. I have seen a couple of films in 3D and loved the experience, but they were made properly with the 3D in mind and used it throughout the film to enhance the experience, but I don't see how seeing Hobbits in 3D will really be any different to 2D... except in the higher cost of viewing.


----------



## myrddin173

Steerpike said:


> Lame.



Would you care to elucidate on that?


----------



## Steerpike

myrddin173 said:


> Would you care to elucidate on that?



The OP asked for my feeling on it 

I don't like 3D movies. I don't like wearing the glasses, and I don't think the 3D effects are worth wearing them for. I also don't like the surcharge to sit and wear 3D glasses and watch a 3D movie when I prefer the 2D version.

Personal preference, basically.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Steerpike said:


> The OP asked for my feeling on it
> 
> I don't like 3D movies. I don't like wearing the glasses, and I don't think the 3D effects are worth wearing them for. I also don't like the surcharge to sit and wear 3D glasses and watch a 3D movie when I prefer the 2D version.
> 
> Personal preference, basically.



And for extra annoyance, try watching the movie with your 3D glasses on top of your regular glasses.


----------



## urcool91

I hate hate hate hate HATE 3D.


----------



## drkpyn

Anyone calling 3D a fad or gimmick is just not thinking logically. Technology advances don't happen overnight. Right now 3D requires uncomfortable glasses and makes some people sick, but every dollar paid for a 3D movie is going to encourage future improvements in the quality. Eventually we will watch TV and movies in full virtual reality as if we were actually there, but that takes time and a cause for investment.

But then again many military personnel of the early 20th century thought the tank was a gimmick that would never catch on, and that seemed to work out pretty well for them.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

drkpyn said:


> Anyone calling 3D a fad or gimmick is just not thinking logically. Technology advances don't happen overnight. Right now 3D requires uncomfortable glasses and makes some people sick, but every dollar paid for a 3D movie is going to encourage future improvements in the quality. Eventually we will watch TV and movies in full virtual reality as if we were actually there, but that takes time and a cause for investment.



Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. Claiming to be able to predict the future of the technology in _either_ direction is a fool's errand.



> But then again many military personnel of the early 20th century thought the tank was a gimmick that would never catch on, and that seemed to work out pretty well for them.



Just because people in the past have said that some technology wouldn't work, and it later worked great, doesn't mean that a completely different, unrelated technology will work just because different people say it won't work. Or, as someone way smarter than me put it:



> "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." – Carl Sagan


----------



## Devor

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. Claiming to be able to predict the future of the technology in _either_ direction is a fool's errand.



There are signs that the technology is moving away from glasses and towards something that might be suitable to a more comfortable environment.  I've never used it, but the Nintendo 3DS, for instance, works without glasses and has the 3D technology on a slider that can be turned off.  It's supposedly a different kind of 3D technology than what we see in the movies.  I don't know if that's something that can be escalated to a larger screen, but there are already 3D television sets which use glasses.

I'm mostly not a fan of 3D technology, but the fact that it can be turned off in the 3DS makes me think it will eventually catch on in the household.  I wouldn't say that with any certainty though.


----------



## drkpyn

Microsoft teases transparent 3D desktop interface - Neowin.net

Inching closer every day. I'm already excited to have one of these at my house!


----------



## grahamguitarman

drkpyn said:


> Microsoft teases transparent 3D desktop interface - Neowin.net
> 
> Inching closer every day. I'm already excited to have one of these at my house!



You can keep it, looks very uncomfortable having to reach behind the screen like that, and transparent displays would be a major cause of eye strain too.  

My son has the Nintendo 3DS by the way, he usually has the 3D turned off because its very hard on the eyes and gives you headaches!

There is a long way to go before 3D screens become even remotely worth watching.  I'll wait until they do, rather than be a guinea pig for the current generation of 3D technology.


----------



## kadenaz

Avatar killed my eyes, so no more 3d for me


----------



## Ivan

I think Jackson's treatment of LotR could have used 3D to good effect, but the only thing that it would possibly be good for in the Hobbit is showing Smaug at the end swooping down and barbecuing the town on the lake. Maybe that's the intent, to save it for a spectacular finish. Still, I'd hate to sit through the entire movie with some stupid glasses on and only use them for the ending. I'll be passing on the extra dimension.


----------



## Faolan

Only time will tell if the 3-D effect will enhance an already great story.


----------



## edd

no seen many 3d films except when i was in hong kong. They went and turned subtitles into 3D and that was really off putting, why an earth did they do that....


----------



## grahamguitarman

edd said:


> no seen many 3d films except when i was in hong kong. They went and turned subtitles into 3D and that was really off putting, why an earth did they do that....


now that would be a major problem for me, I'm hard of hearing and rely on subtitles heavily.  Making them 3D would create a huge barrier to being able to enjoy the film - floating words? no thank you.


----------



## Martinus

Like a lot of people, I will be sticking to the 2D version.  3D films are a fad that come and go, and it really does little to improve a story.  Until they have holodecks, the third dimension is not really viable in cinema.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I don't really care for 3D. In some cases, depending on where I sit, it can make me a bit sick.

I'll be seeing it in 2D if I can....


----------



## Zophos

I don't mind the 3D, don't think it really takes much away from the movie, but don't really think it adds much. 

The only movie I've seen that I thought it added brilliantly enough to make it worth the trouble was Tron Legacy. I imagine Avatar was better in 3D, as well, but I didn't think I'd care for it enough to bother going to the theater for it. I was right.

I can't see there being a significant upgrade to doing the Hobbit in 3D. I'm honestly a little wary of a big screen Hobbit in 2D, but I thought the same of LOTR and that turned out pretty well.


----------



## ethgania

...I don't think I've ever seen a movie in 3D in the theaters, simply because of the price differences. It'll probably be the same for _The Hobbit_ as well.  As psyched as I am for the movie, I'm excited about it because, well, it's _The Hobbit_, not because of the screen magic they're trying to pull off.


----------



## Butterfly

I'll never see a movie in 3D... I'm longsighted, and my eyes aren't of equal vision strength, which means I'm 3D blind. I tried once, everything was blue... apart from that wearing the glasses over my own was not very comfy. Beside I'm glad in a way, watching any telly for too long makes me travel sick... it's all this stupid shoddy modern camera work moving in and out, and shaking all about. 

...I hate the hokey cokey, always did...


----------



## Zophos

Butterfly said:


> I'll never see a movie in 3D... I'm longsighted, and my eyes aren't of equal vision strength, which means I'm 3D blind. I tried once, everything was blue... apart from that wearing the glasses over my own was not very comfy. Beside I'm glad in a way, watching any telly for too long makes me travel sick... it's all this stupid shoddy modern camera work moving in and out, and shaking all about.
> 
> ...I hate the hokey cokey, always did...



Yeah, my wife's got a stigmatism. Can't see the 3D stuff either. 

Worse yet, the old bat won't go get it fixed!


----------



## Renos

Well although it would be cool in 3D the most weird thing with the Hobbit is not 3D but that Peter Jackson will film it in 48fps rather than 24fps. I am waiting to see the end result. It should be interesting


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Renos said:


> Well although it would be cool in 3D the most weird thing with the Hobbit is not 3D but that Peter Jackson will film it in 48fps rather than 24fps. I am waiting to see the end result. It should be interesting



Yeah, me too. High-frame rate replay tends to look like video/soap opera/"behind the scenes" footage, it doesn't look like a movie. Probably it's just that we're all used to 24 fps and 48 therefore looks weird, but we'll probably get used to it eventually.


----------

