MrPink93485
Member
Well, it's not like IMAX produces the content, so that ire goes elsewhere.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IMAX Is Moving Away From 3-D: Consumers Have Shown a Strong Preference
- Thread starter LordOfLore
- Start date
Well, it's not like IMAX produces the content, so that ire goes elsewhere.
ratcliffja
Member
I just want the option for 2D IMAX again. Nolan seems to be the only one doing it any more.
Edit: though to be fair it's because he doesn't provide a 3D option at all.
Edit: though to be fair it's because he doesn't provide a 3D option at all.
FriendlyGoat
Member
Wow, this is great to hear. I do enjoy the occasional movie in 3D, and the Laser IMAX 3D is something else entirely, but for most IMAX theaters it detracts from the experience.
I am willing to pay a premium for the likes of IMAX and RPX and other theater specific gimmicks not only because of the bigger screens and better audio, but because theaters generally pay a little more attention to the overall presentation on those screens. I've experienced fewer instances of awkward matting, blurry, off-center or dark projection, buzzy speakers, etc on those screens, but I always have to work my schedule around the handful of 2D screenings.
I am willing to pay a premium for the likes of IMAX and RPX and other theater specific gimmicks not only because of the bigger screens and better audio, but because theaters generally pay a little more attention to the overall presentation on those screens. I've experienced fewer instances of awkward matting, blurry, off-center or dark projection, buzzy speakers, etc on those screens, but I always have to work my schedule around the handful of 2D screenings.
PeskyToaster
Member
Nolan bestows his blessings once again
PuppetSlave
Member
Good, getting a bit tired of wearing the glasses and I usually forget the 3d is there five minutes into the film.
Hopefully 48fps 2D eventually becomes a focus, action scenes benefit so much from being able to see what's happening. 3D is amazing when done well, and in all honesty it mostly is done well nowadays. 3D will make a comeback when you don't need glasses, it's definitely not dying
bobbyrawlins
Banned
Thank God. I actively avoid IMAX and go to a smaller theater instead when they only have 3D showings. 3D is a fucking gimmick that needs to die.
moltonasty
Member
Conflicted. I love 3D but it's so much better at home on a good quality TV, that I tend to avoid it in theaters. I just hope it doesn't go away completely.
TimFL
Member
Whenever I watch a 3D movie I have a hard time following fast movement in, for example, fights. It's all blurry and out of focus for me.
That's why I usually end up booking the 2D showings but I end up paying more than the 3D one anyways cause I always book the Vip seats (my cinema has a row of leather Vip seats you can lean back in + have more free space around you).
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Nice.
RedNalgene
Member
I actively avoid 3D movies. Most aren't shot for 3D, so you end up paying an extra $10 for a few pop-outs and have to wear glasses for 2hrs. No thanks.
Now if they could just stop charging extra for "IMAX Experience" we'll be golden.
Now if they could just stop charging extra for "IMAX Experience" we'll be golden.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Good. That means more IMAX screens, nice seats, and more available times that I can go without having to deal with 3D.
Jangowuzhere
Banned
Does this mean ticket prices will drop?
Junior Mint
Member
Both. 3D is annoying and adds nothing for me. In fact, I'd say it subtracts from the experience. I've literally stopped going to the movies because every new release pushes 3D hard with only a few regular showings at BS times like 3:00pm on weekdays.
The extra charge is just more garbage on top of garbage.
With VR it's hard to say. Hit to image quality and strapping things to your head is worth it for the emersion in VR. While hit to image quality (and wallets) was never worth it in 3D.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
The only really good 3-D modern movie I can recall is Avatar and that's it.
Any other examples?
Any other examples?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
48fps got killed by a group of annoying dwarves and that one dude from The Office.
No, the first one.
The BRITISH one.
Good 3D can be worth the extra cost. However, that seems to be about 1 in every 100 3D films released. I can count on one hand the number of films that I feel benefited from 3D screens. The vast majority are just trying to squeeze an extra $3 from 20-30% of the domestic audience, and appeal to particular foreign markets.
Just wait. We're still in the novelty phase.
People made the same arguments about 3D cinema and here we are. And VR headsets are even more uncomfortable than plastic glasses.
3D is not ready for the mainstream until you can watch it without additional, uncomfortable devices.
Life of Pi. Gravity too, even though a lot of that was post conversion.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It almost made it 10 whole years.
2008-2017
2008-2017
Caayn
Member
Higher framerate movies would be so welcome.
Mrstriker09
Member
I cant stand 3D movies, they make movies look way too dark.
Fuck you all, I love 3D. I see every film in 3D IMAX when I can.
I have to say though, I did notice the IMAX cinema was pretty dead for Spider-Man Homecoming on opening weekend (which was only being shown in 3D in IMAX)
But then last year Doctor Strange 3D and Fantastic Beasts 3D were packed in IMAX. It can't have had such a big drop off in less than a year, can it?
I still buy all my Blurays in 3D too. I love it.
I have to say though, I did notice the IMAX cinema was pretty dead for Spider-Man Homecoming on opening weekend (which was only being shown in 3D in IMAX)
But then last year Doctor Strange 3D and Fantastic Beasts 3D were packed in IMAX. It can't have had such a big drop off in less than a year, can it?
I still buy all my Blurays in 3D too. I love it.
3D won't actually go away entirely.
Also, in Canada we have Cineplex (which owns more than 70% of Canadian screens) ramming 3D down our throats like it's 2010 still. If you want to see the 2D version of a new release at Cineplex, you need to go to a 3pm matinee in most places that I have been.
Also Hugo.
heavy liquid
Member
Good. Like others have said, it's usually a distraction for me and the brightness is significantly dimmed when watching 3D. I go out of my way to avoid it.
True IMAX filmed in the format is a revelation. Digital IMAX and other screens just can't compete with the 18k resolution of actual IMAX film. Watching the Dunkirk IMAX scenes was like looking through a window. It was amazing.
True IMAX filmed in the format is a revelation. Digital IMAX and other screens just can't compete with the 18k resolution of actual IMAX film. Watching the Dunkirk IMAX scenes was like looking through a window. It was amazing.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Oh, I know. The phrase is "death AND taxes" not death OF taxes.
AstroNut325
Member
I stopped going to IMAX 3D because tickets were $20+ in various theaters. I enjoy 3D, but I'm not paying that much.
Kor of Memory
Member
This is perfect for me. I just saw my first IMAX movie ever with Wonder Woman, and out of the entire experience, the only thing I didn't enjoy was the 3D.
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
Glad to hear it. 3d was just something that was "hay thats cool" for 5 mins and then you either didn't even really notice it or it had forced in 3D moments in the film which were kinda bad. Its prob just because I have an astigmatism but I would randomly lose focus during 3d films and it took a second to focus back again and because I wasn't really noticing the 3d after the first 5 mins it was just annoying.
3D is fine but most movies are post converted and most IMAX theatres don't use Laser so the image gets dimmer.
The thing that IMAX should be doing is completely phase out their shitty IMAX digital that's advertised as IMAX when it's not even the same aspect ratio as the real IMAX and make sure that all of those are replaced with atleast IMAX laser which atleast provides the same aspect ratio as the true 70mm IMAX.
The thing that IMAX should be doing is completely phase out their shitty IMAX digital that's advertised as IMAX when it's not even the same aspect ratio as the real IMAX and make sure that all of those are replaced with atleast IMAX laser which atleast provides the same aspect ratio as the true 70mm IMAX.
For me watching 2d in cinemas is not worth the effort. No matter if 3d is good or just there, it increases the immersion for me tremendously and even "just there" 3d gives the screen way more depth than there is without. And the only trade-off is wearing glasses? I never understood the vile hatred for 3d and am saddened by it and every thing leading to a potential demise as it will certainly curb my enthusiasm for the cinema.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not really an either/or based on Nolan's existence.
The writing for this was on the wall when IMAX started re-branding regular film as "The IMAX 2D Experience" Company was looking to bring people back that had gotten the misconception that IMAX = 3D screenings.
It's sorta weird that in such a brief period of time the company had to essentially re-brand itself with "2D" in order to remind moviegoers they were still worth pursuing. That speaks more to language/semantics in general though, I guess.
But the fact they felt they had to do that at all tells me they were realizing that 3D as an appealing option had declined while simultaneously being seen as what the company does, and they had to address that.
(I also think it's fucking goofy that "2D" has to be specified at all)
People don't like 3D very much. It was a big thing once. It isn't anymore. It's more of an inconvenience.
The writing for this was on the wall when IMAX started re-branding regular film as "The IMAX 2D Experience" Company was looking to bring people back that had gotten the misconception that IMAX = 3D screenings.
It's sorta weird that in such a brief period of time the company had to essentially re-brand itself with "2D" in order to remind moviegoers they were still worth pursuing. That speaks more to language/semantics in general though, I guess.
But the fact they felt they had to do that at all tells me they were realizing that 3D as an appealing option had declined while simultaneously being seen as what the company does, and they had to address that.
(I also think it's fucking goofy that "2D" has to be specified at all)
People don't like 3D very much. It was a big thing once. It isn't anymore. It's more of an inconvenience.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
His movies are fucking filled with CG. He just does things right, in that he likes to mix the CG with practical effects as much as possible, instead of just making anything and everything CG like is so common.
I wish.. I'm now up to $26 a movie at the Lincoln Square IMAX in NYC, $30 is probably gonna happen in a couple years.
Screaming_Gremlin
My QB is a Dick and my coach is a Nutt
This doesn't really surprise me. My local Cinemark has an XD screen, which is their version of an IMAX. When 3D took off, every showing was 3D if possible. Then a year or so ago they started to split the screenings. There would be a 3D showing, followed by a 2D showing. They still split the showings, but now the 2D shows get the premier time slots.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll