Pajiba

Cannot... be... unseen. I do not understand slash fic. At least with a tawdry Hermione/Ginny fic, you can acknowledge how common it is for young girls to casually experiment with the idea of another girl. Plus thy're friends.

Do you have any idea how many Draco/Harry fics exist? Thousands! I do not get it.

Oh, this post is about 3D? I'm basically meh for it. I don't want every movie to be the sexual equivalent of Ron Jeremy. It would leave me raw. Let's keep some things soft and slow, why don't we?

And without all the back hair.

I’m a story guy (also, insanely charming and fantastic in bed).

Yes, but you never call the next day. Bastard.

I'm less likely to see it. I'd rather have seen Avatar in 2D but there wasn't the option at my cinema. Mostly it's because I have bad eyes. I'm extremely short sighted and have a slight astigmatism in one eye, and whether this has anything to do with it or not, I have trouble seeing 3D in proper focus and all its amazing glory. I spent the first 15 minutes of Avatar turning my head trying to make it not annoying as all hell.

Also, the cost. I was beyond pissed off that they charged more for the 3D. It's not like going to the cinema is a cheap experience anyway these days.

For something big and effects heavy I can maybe understand it, for those who don't have gimpy eyes. But for something like a drama or rom-com? Seems pointless to me. What are you getting out of it exactly? Ooh yay it's like Jennifer Aniston is right there in the cinema with you! Great.

Yeah...that picture freaks me the fuck out.

I hate 3D movies. It may be that I'm used to "2D" but it just seems like much ado for nothing to me. I, like millions, saw Avatar in 3D thinking the whole time how distracting it was. It did, however, periodically pull me from the frustrating narrative. I didn't realize it was playing at the same theatre in both formats. I was pissed. That's the only 3D movie I've seen, though. And as far as I know, Nebraska still operates on the US dollar.

I never tell a lie.

I just hope they do the Potter ones in Real3D, cause IMAX 3D kinda sucks, and those movies are so dark that the edges are always fuzzy on those "special scenes".

The 3D Toy Storys were BEAUTIFUL. As was "Coraline".

True story, the only 3D movie I've ever seen was Captain Eo at Epcot Center. I was just a kid at the time, but the whole technique lost its appeal when Michael Jackson came out of the screen at me.

1. 3D's not bad, but seems like it's gonna be overused REALLY fucking quickly.

2. I am more likely to see SOME movies in 3D. Avatar, for example, was wholly more enjoyable with the 3D than without. And I have seen other 3D movies...first one was Friday the 13th Pt. 3.

3. Obviously I have that option to see 3D.

4. No movie works in 3D unless it has Action, Horror, or epic Sci-Fi. I have no desire to see Jonah Hill's sour-creamy nutsack lunging out at me from the screen.

5. I wouldn't mind seeing the new HP's in 3D. Clash though...fuck that movie. I will committ murders in the name of my beloved Harryhausen.

6. Pig-fucker? Is Pig-fucker the capital of Nebraska? If it's not the capital, I know it's a major metropolis for the state. I was just readng the other day that they finally got a 54' Ford panel truck for their public works department.

Lincoln.

I haven't seen a 3D movie and don't plan to, because there's no way this cheap bastard is paying $15 to see a movie. I would like to say, however, that any movie with Christina Hendricks and/or Salma Hayek in it should be REQUIRED to be in 3D, by edict of the Pajiba Board of Public Indecency. So get on it, Secretary Skitz. You're doin' a heckuva job.

, the only 3D movie I've ever seen was Captain Eo at Epcot Center.

You never saw "Magic Journeys"?!?!? You got there too late, sucka!

since I already know the story, which I assume isn't going to change.

Well, from what I can tell, it's not the same story as the previous movie at all, besides Perseus being a character in it.

I have only ever seen one movie in 3-D. That was Treasure Of The Four Crowns. According to IMDB, that movie came out in 1983. So, I haven't seen a 3-D movie in over 26 years.

While I will likely end up seeing "Avatar" in the theater and in 3-D, it's more of a curiosity than a desire. I just want to see what it looks like and if it's just more than a bunch 3-D tricks (i.e., shit flying out of the screen for no good reason).

I don't want to be too quick to poo-poo 3-D. I like story better than effects, but there's no reason to believe that the presence of 3-D will have any further negative effect on a story than the presence of a lot of other special effects/CGI. Some 3-D/effects driven movies will have a story that overcomes this reliance, while the vast majority will not.

If 3-D technology has advanced to the point where it actually makes films a more immersive experience, I am all for it. If it's just a distraction, not so much.

The increased ticket prices is a big concern. This will obviously be a way for theaters to start charging more for little extra value. Look at what "HD" has done to cable prices. I love HD TV. I think it's the best TV invention, other than the DVR, since cable. It looks awesome. That said, cable/satellite companies have used the awesomeness of HD to jack prices up to ridiculous amounts. They know that people will be willing to spend the extra cash each month because they've already gone out and invested in their super-sweet 62" HD flat-screen TVs and $100 HDMI cables (huge rip-off on those).

I can see 3-D being used in a similar fashion in theaters. Theaters are struggling as it and need to, and, in fact, will do anything they can to make an extra buck.

So, in conclusion, while I am not thrilled with this 3-D obsession and don't find it necessary, I am not quite ready to pass judgment until I see what it's capable of.

My first 3D movie was A Christmas Carol, and I thought it was fantastic. Was it necessary? No. But it certainly added a whole new level of fun to an already great story. The whole Ghost of Christmas Present careening around London looking through the bottom of the floor scene was fantastic.

And when I say fantastic, I mean it. Both times.

Oh Lord, please take this picture off. Ick.
I personally don't care for 3D. I would have preferred to see Avatar in IMAX in 2D, I think it would have been just as good and less distracting. Not to say that I didn't enjoy it, b/c I did, I just would have enjoyed the first 20 minutes more.
I hate uncomfortable glasses and the eye discomfort of 3D movies on screen. I would definitely be less likely to see a 3D movie. Given the choice, I'd rather go see the next Harry Potter films on 2D screens.
Off to scrub my eyeballs.

Sure 3D is cool with the right movie. All the Harry Potter movies should be good in 3D as it is such a visually rich movie in almost every scene. I would personally convert every Tim Burton movie into 3D also. As for any Jane Austin movie in 3D, well Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet's cleavage in 3D would get my attention (briefly) but other than that I can't see it being well suited. Going to the movies is all in the experience (and not just the back row) and 3D just adds an extra dimension to it.
Are we going to expect fancy scripts etc for the extra outlay for a 3D movie?
Of course not you Dingbat. How about a decent script and acting for any price!
Speaking of which when is Bay's Ultimate Battle Ship: The Alien Edition 3D to be announced?

WHO around here is paying retail for HDMI cables?

Come forth so we may mock and deride you!

Do you, uh, have a bigger version of that pic? I think I need it for, um, research. Yep.

I think 3D is overrated. But I also think HD is overrated. I can see the difference but it's not something that's going to make me want to shell out another $2,000+ for a new tv, blue ray player, and HD cable.

Plus with 3D, if it's done bad, I get really bad motion sickness. I usually close my eyes for the 3D segments. So if a movie is all 3d, I won't see it.

Nearest 3D theatre is nearly three hours away, and frankly if I'm driving out to the city, I've got better things to do than to hunker down in a movie theatre wearing my little fake Ray Bans. My family did make the drive (in two cars, no less) to see "Avatar" on Christmas eve together, but I doubt I'd make the same effort for anything less hyped.

However, my tradition with Harry Potter is to see it with all my nerdy friends down in Vancouver, so maybe I'll wind up seeing it in 3D with them anyway!

The first movie I saw in 3D was the Nightmare on Elm Street one, I don't remember what number it was. I think I was around 12 at the time. Then and now I thought it was a cheap trick, and could be either slightly amusing or really irritating. How much does it take you out of the story to have something coming at your face, just because they can have something coming at your face? Eh, boring. I suppose I'll see things in 3D, if I'm interested in seeing them regardless of their being in 3D. I don't see it affecting my choices that much.

Just like I thought, Malfoy is a top.

slim, I think he's likely a switch, but Potter is definitely a bottom, so I can see how you'd come to that conclusion.

Lincoln is the capitol of Nebraska, and lay off, haters. It's a very cool town. No, I don't live there, but it is home to the cutest baby in the world, who happens to be my great-niece. (and now I feel old...)

I find 3D irritating, because the glasses don't fit right over my glasses, and I don't wear contacts. Otherwise, I guess they're okay, but I don't think they add all that much to the experience.

3-D gives me headaches. Also, the 3-D glasses don't fit over my glasses, either. The 3-D glasses give me headaches because they don't fit right even if I take MY glasses off. And I don't like pointy stuff thrown at my face.

The difference between 2-D and 3-D is like looking at someones nice ass and actually having your head thrust up their ass. I prefer 2-D.

has decided not only to convert their upcoming Clash of the Titans film into 3D, they’re also doing the same with the next two Harry Potter flicks.

*strikes both off of To Watch list unless they're also available on 2D*

fuck you, Hollywood. FUCK YOU. I don't give a shit about 3D or the motion capture BULLSHIT and if you motherfuckers think you're gonna get $15 out of me because of some added bells and whistles you're dead fucking wrong. IT ADDS NOTHING AT ALL TO A MOVIE.

I say this with all the contempt and fury I can summon: FUCK YOU

I can only hope that it's nothing but a shitty fad and it'll die out in a few years along with motion capture bullshit.

Agreed, Reba, Lincoln has the awesome. I've visited a few times (for Thespian Conventions - wuddup!) and I really loved the area around the campus.

I'm all about the 3D, but it seems to me that a movie would have to be made with 3D in mind for it to have much of an impact. Look at "My Bloody Vaginantine" that came out last year. CLEARY made with 3D in mind. Axes came flying at you and everything. Adding it post-production seems like it might be a little underwhelming.

Avatar was great in 3D because stuff wasn't flying IN YOUR FACE like all those horrible kids movies and horror flicks. I don't want to develop whiplash trying to dodge a gerbil or a knife or somesuch nonsense.

...And honestly, how can you slash Harry with anyone but the Weasley twins? They're twins! Philistines.

Wow, aren't we all the luddites? I generally tend to resent new technology as I think all any of it does is take us away more and more from living in the moment. Not necessarily true in this case, but generally unnecessary. If a movie's writing and acting can't compel me to feel, that is not going to change via optical illusion.

Plus everyone knows those glasses dramatically reduce your probability of making out in the theater, which is the whole point of going to the movies.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of Pajibians hate 3D make it reasonably apparent that it will become the norm in Hollywood. Seriously, think of the stupidest, cheesiest WHATEVER that makes your brain weep blood, and Hollywood has already embraced it, or is spending billions on the technology to do so.

Avatar was my first 3D movie, and it really was awesome. The good thing about living in a big city is that you have options... we have regular Avatar, 3D Avatar, and IMAX 3D Avatar. And as long as NYC continues having these options for all the movies that get 3D-fied, I don't really mind.

... Sucks for all the rest of you country folks. MUAHAHAHAHHA!

*ducks as a cow flies over her head.

And that only happens in New York.

We are facing a difficult time here: 1) our DVD sales are way down 2) The MEGA Corp suits demand higher profit to offset losses in their REIT Port 3) stars do not absolutely guarantee box office results 4) The effing video game industry is really bigger than the movie biz so...

We make less movies but concentrate on using retold hack stories by directors and writers who once wrote and/or directed an after school special because their cheap:
We make every game, comic book, TV series or cartoon (we are we in now the '80s) with young cheap actors:
WE MAKE EVERY NEW PROJECT IN 3-D REGARDLESS OF GENRE! WE GO BACK AND REDO OUR LIBRARY IN 3-D!!!!!! GOME WITH THE WIND IN 3-D CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG IN 3-D KISS KISS BANG BANG IN 3-D
WE FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY 3-D TV's FOR HOME
WITH UNCOOL LOOKING 3-D GLASSES

DR. TONGUE RULES!

yeah, that picture'll be in my dreams, too, MelBiv.

Awwwww yeeeeaaah.

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least 80% of 3D film releases since Beowulf. My fiancé loves the gimmick and the novelty doesn't seem to be wearing off for him anytime soon. Apart from Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth, I've enjoyed most of what we've seen. I just hope to god he's not going to try dragging me to Piranha 3D.

I wear glasses, though, so I get to be one of those ridiculous looking folks slipping the flimsy 3D shades over their real lenses. Very fashion-forward, I assure you. If I weren't so blind that ditching the glasses and/or wearing contacts were an option, I might get more excited when we go to see new releases.

Oh, I do have to agree with a previous poster who mentioned Avatar's fuzziness. The CG scenes were gorgeous in 3D, but the 'real' scenes had me checking my glasses nonstop the first 30 minutes or so to see if there was some sort of kink in the lenses.

The only movie I've seen in 3D is Avatar, and the only impression it made on me was that it doesn't really work. It's better in the computer generated scenes, but for live action the '3D' just looks like a bunch of 2D pictures at varying distances. Like someone took a picture, cut out all the people in the foreground and then held them closer to you to give the impression of depth. It doesn't look real and, while it gets less distracting when you get used to it, it's hardly worth paying extra and having to wear sunglasses through the whole movie for.

The best part of 3D movies is the headaches. And the extra cash for the shitty glasses (of which I have several pairs now). And the fact that the best movies I've ever seen in 3D barely utilized the technology (I'm talking Pixar here, while making an exception for Coraline), while the worst (Avatar, Beowulf, Superman Returns) failed miserably because 3D visuals have never distracted me long enough to make me forget that when the story, script, acting, and directing are all completely stupid, the movie isn't good, and no amount of 3D (which is the CGI film equivalent of a stripper rubbed to the gills with lubricating body glitter) will ever change that fact.

Those are my favorite things about 3D movies.