WTF?! I bullshit back! I was only commenting on 15 minutes extra drive being oh so inconvenient, not about the rate at which 2D is going away.

bilge

It doesn't matter whether it is 15 minutes now or not. We all know it will keep getting worse.

What difference does that make how often I do it? If I don't want to see a movie in 3D, I shouldn't have to go out of my way. That's it. I've been going to the same theater all my life and now any big 3D movie is shown in 3D only. So now I have to travel further just to avoid paying the extra $4? Makes sense...sike.

What's not inconvenient for you might be inconvenient for others.

no doubt, only 4 2D (10 3D) showings for TS3 at the theater closest to my location. By the time potter comes out I would not be surprised if it were offered in 3D only

I'll be going well out of my way to see TS3 in so-called "2D" tomorrow.



I vote with my $$$ in the hopes of not letting the blight of 3D take over completely. I certainly will be doing my best to see the bright beautiful colors of 2D versions of all movies as long as they are available.

Hopefully, this fake 3D thing is exposed as the silly fad it is, and people wake up to the scam.

There's definitely an awareness among audiences on if a 3D film is worth the extra dimension. Look at Clash of the Titans- it started out with a relatively low-ish ratio, but then saw the 2D prints have better staypower. Same thing happened with Shrek 4, but screen cuts pushed it to a higher 3D ratio in its third weekend (makes more sense for theaters to have 1 3D print rather than 1 2D print).

By next summer, there will be enough 3D screens so that you will not get an option for major event films. If studios keep converting their movies (looking at you, Last Airbender/COTT/GT/Narnia/HP), then audiences will vote with their dollars, and as fast as the 3D craze came in, that's as fast as it's going to go away.

If you want my opinion, it's a bullshit scam. It's pushing cinema further and further down to becoming little more than amusement park attractions.

Don't act like i'm stupid. Of course i got it that it's 15 minutes IN ONE DIRECTION! We drove 1 hour IN ONE DIRECTION to see a movie in 3D, that's what i call going out of ones way.

If all event films are going to be shot in glorious 3D (as opposed to quick and dirty conversions) i don't care because 3D done right is awesome. If you have problems with it, well, TOUGH LUCK!

It's all relative. For some people driving 30 minutes is a long hike whereas others can't get anywhere of interest without having to drive 45 minutes.

That's quite an uncharacteristically selfish opinion for you, Nazgul9.

I don't mind if there are 3D versions for those who who don't mind the muted colors and darker pictures, but I am not pleased that they are making it so difficult for those of us who prefer 2D.

Since it seems to be mainly money they're after, rather than artistic integrity, with this push for 3D - - I wouldn't mind even paying the $3 premium for 2D if I'm allowed to continue to see my movies the way I wish to see them presented.

Due to How to Train Your Dragon/Clash of the Titans opening so close to each other for the first month of its run, it was a 1 hour drive each way to see Dragon in either format (the theaters made a certain commitment to Clash, I suppose, for the 3d screens and Paramount wouldn't let them just have the 2D).

Well 3D screens can still show digital 2D, so there is a positive there when 3D begins to slip.

Yeah, that's like saying 3D TV's only play 3D entertainment.

3D came and went before. This time it has the TV manufacturers backing it but there will be a downward trend soon.

There already kinda is. Toy Story had the same 3D ratio Up had a year ago.. with 1000 more 3D screens. Shrek's ratio was also considerably lower than Alice, Dragon, or Avatar.

And NazGul, I hate to sound unoriginal, but please get your head out of your ass and understand that not everyone loves 3D like you do.

He won't.

Please understand that there are people who love 3D and constantly reading about how some of you find it ass can get tiresome.

It works both ways.

I've made a decision that I'll watch only movie filmed in 3D in 3D. No conversions. And if in that case my theater doesn't have a regular version (which still hasn't happened yet), then to hell with them. I'll watch the movie on DVD/BluRay.

By end of the year this ratio will be like 40% except for HP which I think will do about 70% in 3D again or even more

I don't see posts constantly praising 3D, do you?


I'll probably do the same. I might make exceptions, though, if word is the conversion was done great. Titanic re-release comes to mind.

No. But I don' see THAT much posts against 3D. It's a minor complaint here and there as far as I can tell.

Titanic has been in the works for more than a year, which is multiple times more than most of the other conversions. I'll definitely check that one out. I've seen the movie like a gazillion of times, so it won't hurt.

Thankfully. There does seem to be the 'yeah whatever' feel to it now. It adds nothing to the film going experience yet costs extra and is uncomfortable.

I think the only way for the 3-D to truly be effective the film must be shot in the format, not converted.

I'm inclined to agree, especially with kid/family films. Families are not going to go out and spend $60+ on admissions before concessions when they're not sure if its worth the time and money. Dragon had a relatively tiny opening, but legs were really great once families realized it was worth seeing. Same thing happened with Shrek, except less so. Toy Story opened pretty big because of the perceived quality, but following this theory, some families were probably hesitant. However, WOM is great so far, so legs should be good.

Thor and Captain America will both be converted into 3D.