Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 27/4/2013 8:21:00 PM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5839
Joined: 26/12/2005
Having waited a while wanting to see this, I'm really annoyed that none of the IMAX available cinemas near me are showing this in 2D. I've made my mind up about it and I can't stand 3D so it's especially annoying that there's no choice if you want to see it in IMAX. I also don't think it's cynical to suggest that it smacks of profiteering, by not offering the choice to people who would usually opt for 2D but want to see it in IMAX so accept the compromise. I hope this doesn't become a trend, but I've seen on pre-bookings for Star Trek Into Darkness that it looks like that will be showing only in IMAX 3D. It's just infuriating that people who don't want any distracting, headache inducing trickery are forced to either watch it in a medium (if even that) they don't like or not watch it all it in IMAX.

_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/
Post #: 1
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 27/4/2013 8:36:06 PM   
thedrin

 

Posts: 562
Joined: 9/1/2007
From: Ireland
There are a limited number of IMAX screens and most, if not all, of them have 3D capability. As long as studios continue to prefer 3D over 2D, that's the way it's going to be.

(in reply to KnightofZyryab)
Post #: 2
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 28/4/2013 12:25:27 AM   
Whistler


Posts: 3064
Joined: 22/11/2006
It bugs me too, but what can you do. The best thing about Oblivion is that it was in IMAX 2D.

(in reply to thedrin)
Post #: 3
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 3:34:26 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
2D versions on regular screens are getting rarer and rarer, too. There are 2 or 3 screenings of the 2D version a day at my local cinema, whereas the 3D version has about 7 or 8 screenings a day. Looks like they're in the process of phasing out 2D screenings of 3D movies altogether... which will mean I'll be saving a lot of money by just not going to the cinema any more if it's true.

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 4
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 5:06:21 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3064
Joined: 22/11/2006
I do think 3D is showing a bit of a decline though. For example, out of the 41 films I've seen at the cinema this year, only 7 were in 3D. Compared to the couple of years post-Avatar that's nothing, and I think it's because studios are finally beginning to realize that the majority of people don't like 3D. They're still forcing it on us, and as you say, when there is a 3D film, 2D screenings for it are scarce, but it's definitely dwindling.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 5
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 5:48:33 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I do think 3D is showing a bit of a decline though. For example, out of the 41 films I've seen at the cinema this year, only 7 were in 3D. Compared to the couple of years post-Avatar that's nothing, and I think it's because studios are finally beginning to realize that the majority of people don't like 3D. They're still forcing it on us, and as you say, when there is a 3D film, 2D screenings for it are scarce, but it's definitely dwindling.


What's the source for this? I've not seen any stats on the matter, so I'd be interested what you base this on.

I've been won over by 3D, mostly due to having it available at home as it works great for sport. I used to be very sceptical of it, but over time I'm getting to be a fan. I genuinely don't understand the dislike for it as a format. I personally don't see it as anything other than a new visual technique to use in film, and like any other technique, when used well it can be a superb addition, when used poorly it can be a distracting fucking mess. Much like CG or animatronics of make up effects work. There are issues with 3D presentations no doubt, and how well it works will often depend on how well the projection is managed alongside how well the conversion is done. I'm no fan of studios knocking out 3D conversion after conversion, but like I say, executed well, it can add a great deal. Plus, I've found friends of mine won over by 3D when they see it on my home set up, although none of my friends have ever expressed a serious dislike for the format. Iron Man 3 doesn't really benefit from the 3D conversion though, but it never really detracts either. Also, most multiplexes don't have multiple IMAX screens, so they're going to be pretty hard pushed to show a 3D and 2D IMAX presentation of the same film. Also, what about the people that want IMAX in 3D? You're happy to have their options reduced or removed to suit yours? I guess the only middle ground is an alternating schedule to show 2D and in the next slot show 3D, then 2D again, then 3D again. The problem there I suppose would be one of profits, why have the 3D IMAX print sat there costing cash whilst the 2D IMAX print plays out.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 6
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 6:12:13 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3064
Joined: 22/11/2006
I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.

Don't get me wrong: if the 3D is done with care and actually looks 3D I don't mind it. I still don't think it's necessary, but I don't hate it so much. The problem is that's barely ever the case, and most 3D movies are just slap-bang jobs put in place to charge extra for absolutely nothing. I couldn't count the number of times I've seen a "3D" movie that's literally just looked like a dark 2D version, and I'm fed up with it.

I'm sure your home set-up is nice and shows the best qualities of 3D, but like I said, even when it's done really well I don't personally find it an enhancing experience.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 7
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 6:20:12 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.



Well, the 'I think' part seemed more like you making an assumption that the studios were making a decision based on customer/public feedback. Your comment seems to make the suggestion that the 'majority of people don't like 3D' is something based on fact rather that something you think. It just wasn't very clear is all.

What really annoys me is that the popular thing at the moment is to keep rolling out the 'everyone hates 3D, so why are they forcing it on us' argument, as if somehow people that actually quite like 3D as a format should have their viewing options reduced to please others. Not something directly aimed at you, just an observation of how these 3D discussions usually go...

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 8
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 7:03:20 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.

Don't get me wrong: if the 3D is done with care and actually looks 3D I don't mind it. I still don't think it's necessary, but I don't hate it so much. The problem is that's barely ever the case, and most 3D movies are just slap-bang jobs put in place to charge extra for absolutely nothing. I couldn't count the number of times I've seen a "3D" movie that's literally just looked like a dark 2D version, and I'm fed up with it.

I'm sure your home set-up is nice and shows the best qualities of 3D, but like I said, even when it's done really well I don't personally find it an enhancing experience.


Pretty sure Avatar, Hugo and Prometheus are the only 3D films to not look like a bunch of cardboard cutouts, too.
I think it's pointless to be honest. I don't begrudge its existence, but it's annoying that you have to go out of your way to find 2D screenings of 3D movies nowadays.

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 9
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 7:04:44 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.



Well, the 'I think' part seemed more like you making an assumption that the studios were making a decision based on customer/public feedback. Your comment seems to make the suggestion that the 'majority of people don't like 3D' is something based on fact rather that something you think. It just wasn't very clear is all.

What really annoys me is that the popular thing at the moment is to keep rolling out the 'everyone hates 3D, so why are they forcing it on us' argument, as if somehow people that actually quite like 3D as a format should have their viewing options reduced to please others. Not something directly aimed at you, just an observation of how these 3D discussions usually go...


A study by L Mark Carrier, of California State University showed that most filmgoers do not in fact find any advantage to 3D and actually find it painful to watch and prefer to watch a 2D film if given the option. I think the question should be why are the majority of showings of certain films 3D and it is almost impossible to find a 2D version of the said film? There should be a balance so people can actually choose rather than forcing one on either side of the argument. Some like it (although they seem to be a vocal few from the evidence which is available) and a lot do not. Give both options equal balance so that the customer can choose. The IMAX 3D thing for Iron Man 3 being a case in point. I personally would like to see it on IMAX but find 3D a painful and unrewarding experience partially due to being short sighted so having to wear spectacle and partially because I have not come out of one 3D showing without a significant headache. As such I am going to try to find a 2D showing which it appears in Norwich does not exist.

A film shot in 3D and with thought to the 3D aspect can accentuate a film (Avatar for example may be a terrible film but looked gorgeous and the 3D assisted in that) but far too much is post processed 3D which does not work or accentuate.

< Message edited by sanchia -- 29/4/2013 7:09:40 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 10
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 29/4/2013 7:16:16 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.



Well, the 'I think' part seemed more like you making an assumption that the studios were making a decision based on customer/public feedback. Your comment seems to make the suggestion that the 'majority of people don't like 3D' is something based on fact rather that something you think. It just wasn't very clear is all.

What really annoys me is that the popular thing at the moment is to keep rolling out the 'everyone hates 3D, so why are they forcing it on us' argument, as if somehow people that actually quite like 3D as a format should have their viewing options reduced to please others. Not something directly aimed at you, just an observation of how these 3D discussions usually go...


A study by L Mark Carrier, of California State University showed that most filmgoers do not in fact find any advantage to 3D and actually find it painful to watch and prefer to watch a 2D film if given the option. I think the question should be why are the majority of showings of certain films 3D and it is almost impossible to find a 2D version of the said film? There should be a balance so people can actually choose rather than forcing one on either side of the argument. Some like it (although they seem to be a vocal few from the evidence which is available) and a lot do not. Give both options equal balance so that the customer can choose. The IMAX 3D thing for Iron Man 3 being a case in point. I personally would like to see it on IMAX but find 3D a painful and unrewarding experience partially due to being short sighted so having to wear spectacle and partially because I have not come out of one 3D showing without a significant headache. As such I am going to try to find a 2D showing which it appears in Norwich does not exist.

A film shot in 3D and with thought to the 3D aspect can accentuate a film (Avatar for example may be a terrible film but looked gorgeous and the 3D assisted in that) but far too much is post processed 3D which does not work or accentuate.


Cant disagree with much of that, but like I say, these 'anti 3D' threads have the tendency to take on a 'I don't like 3D, no one likes 3D, they're stealing our 2D movies'. I can only go on the experience of the cinema I frequent (Cineworld Sheffield) but I've never noticed an issue when trying to find a 2D showing of a 3D film. Current 3D films, such as IM3 and GI Joe 2, have the option of both, and I've never known a 3D film to not have the alternative 2D. Dredd last year was an example I guess, as many complained they couldn't find a 2D showing, but for me, it would never have been a problem as it was available in the two formats. I've never known a 3D movie at Cineworld Sheffield to not have the 2D option. So, with that being the case, I suppose the issue is more with the multiplexes themselves, who are restricted due to screen numbers, who will have to make a choice of showing 2D or 3D rather than both. So, why people think the studio's are restricting viewing options I don't know. I've never seen the evidence of it, and I guess you only ever would if the cinema you go to is restricted by its screen numbers?

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 11
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 1/5/2013 12:31:34 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 362
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

Cant disagree with much of that, but like I say, these 'anti 3D' threads have the tendency to take on a 'I don't like 3D, no one likes 3D, they're stealing our 2D movies'. I can only go on the experience of the cinema I frequent (Cineworld Sheffield) but I've never noticed an issue when trying to find a 2D showing of a 3D film. Current 3D films, such as IM3 and GI Joe 2, have the option of both, and I've never known a 3D film to not have the alternative 2D. Dredd last year was an example I guess, as many complained they couldn't find a 2D showing, but for me, it would never have been a problem as it was available in the two formats. I've never known a 3D movie at Cineworld Sheffield to not have the 2D option. So, with that being the case, I suppose the issue is more with the multiplexes themselves, who are restricted due to screen numbers, who will have to make a choice of showing 2D or 3D rather than both. So, why people think the studio's are restricting viewing options I don't know. I've never seen the evidence of it, and I guess you only ever would if the cinema you go to is restricted by its screen numbers?


I fancied giving my nearest Cineworld (Leigh) a go for Iron Man 3 as I liked the newish cinema when I watched Skyfall there. Unfortunately I found that, of the forty showings on the website covering the first nine days, only three were in 2D, all on release day. Needless to say I went elsewhere as, thankfully, all the other cinemas in the local area had plenty of 2D showings.

A sign of things to come though? Only if the tactic paid off.

Incidentally, I found it impossible to find a 2D showing of Dredd but I settled for 3D to support it.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 12
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 1/5/2013 9:10:40 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.



Well, the 'I think' part seemed more like you making an assumption that the studios were making a decision based on customer/public feedback. Your comment seems to make the suggestion that the 'majority of people don't like 3D' is something based on fact rather that something you think. It just wasn't very clear is all.

What really annoys me is that the popular thing at the moment is to keep rolling out the 'everyone hates 3D, so why are they forcing it on us' argument, as if somehow people that actually quite like 3D as a format should have their viewing options reduced to please others. Not something directly aimed at you, just an observation of how these 3D discussions usually go...


A study by L Mark Carrier, of California State University showed that most filmgoers do not in fact find any advantage to 3D and actually find it painful to watch and prefer to watch a 2D film if given the option. I think the question should be why are the majority of showings of certain films 3D and it is almost impossible to find a 2D version of the said film? There should be a balance so people can actually choose rather than forcing one on either side of the argument. Some like it (although they seem to be a vocal few from the evidence which is available) and a lot do not. Give both options equal balance so that the customer can choose. The IMAX 3D thing for Iron Man 3 being a case in point. I personally would like to see it on IMAX but find 3D a painful and unrewarding experience partially due to being short sighted so having to wear spectacle and partially because I have not come out of one 3D showing without a significant headache. As such I am going to try to find a 2D showing which it appears in Norwich does not exist.

A film shot in 3D and with thought to the 3D aspect can accentuate a film (Avatar for example may be a terrible film but looked gorgeous and the 3D assisted in that) but far too much is post processed 3D which does not work or accentuate.


Cant disagree with much of that, but like I say, these 'anti 3D' threads have the tendency to take on a 'I don't like 3D, no one likes 3D, they're stealing our 2D movies'. I can only go on the experience of the cinema I frequent (Cineworld Sheffield) but I've never noticed an issue when trying to find a 2D showing of a 3D film. Current 3D films, such as IM3 and GI Joe 2, have the option of both, and I've never known a 3D film to not have the alternative 2D. Dredd last year was an example I guess, as many complained they couldn't find a 2D showing, but for me, it would never have been a problem as it was available in the two formats. I've never known a 3D movie at Cineworld Sheffield to not have the 2D option. So, with that being the case, I suppose the issue is more with the multiplexes themselves, who are restricted due to screen numbers, who will have to make a choice of showing 2D or 3D rather than both. So, why people think the studio's are restricting viewing options I don't know. I've never seen the evidence of it, and I guess you only ever would if the cinema you go to is restricted by its screen numbers?


I actually found out that it was not so much there were no 2D showings just that they were sold out whilst the 3D showings still had plently of space. I've managed to now book a 2D showing on Friday.


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 13
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 2/5/2013 2:46:37 PM   
Chief


Posts: 7766
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Banshee

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Iron Man 3 doesn't really benefit from the 3D conversion though, but it never really detracts either.


This is the only bit I can disagree with, I found it poorly executed and distracting and my opinion of the film suffered for it.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 14
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 4/5/2013 12:59:20 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Turned out I booked the wrong showing and got 3D. the finale is the very first time 3D has almost made me physically sick in a cinema and I had to close my eyes for about five minutes. That was an unpleasant moment.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Chief)
Post #: 15
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 4/5/2013 6:37:11 PM   
DaveTheStampede

 

Posts: 247
Joined: 6/3/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
I can only go on the experience of the cinema I frequent (Cineworld Sheffield) but I've never noticed an issue when trying to find a 2D showing of a 3D film.
...
So, why people think the studio's are restricting viewing options I don't know. I've never seen the evidence of it, and I guess you only ever would if the cinema you go to is restricted by its screen numbers?

Two points:
1) I take it Cineworld Sheffield was one of a handful of cinema's to get a 2D version of 'Dredd'?

2) When pressed as to why there were so few 2D showings of 'Dredd', Odeon (and others, I believe) responded that they had requested more 2D versions, but they were simply denied them.

Yes, 'Dredd' was a (comparatively) small film, but if it happened to 'Dredd', a film you would expect to need as much exposure and as little... shall we say splitting of its audience as possible, to think it doesn't/hasn't happened to some degree with larger films seems a tad naive. It has been my experience that there are significantly more 3D showings than 2D showings of films I fancy seeing, often meaning I don't get to see said films, because the showing times aren't doable for me.

Although, interestingly, I just checked my local Odeon and there are currently more 2D showings (31) of 'Iron Man 3' than 3D showings (23). I'd like to think that was the start of a downward trend to, at the very least, parity, but on Thursday at the same cinema there are five 2D showings of Star Trek, and nine 3D showings...

_____________________________

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 16
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 10:41:11 AM   
Shardyhaha

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 25/3/2012
I saw Ironman in 3D IMAX and completely forgot the film was in 3D whilst watching it. The only 3D I remember from my afternoon at the cinema was from the Man of Steel trailer beforehand which included a shot of a pot of pencils in 3D.

(in reply to DaveTheStampede)
Post #: 17
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 4:23:36 PM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5839
Joined: 26/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I'm not basing it on stats, I'm simply assuming. That's why I said "I think". But only 7 out of 41 films being in 3D I feel gives me good reason to assume that's the case.



Well, the 'I think' part seemed more like you making an assumption that the studios were making a decision based on customer/public feedback. Your comment seems to make the suggestion that the 'majority of people don't like 3D' is something based on fact rather that something you think. It just wasn't very clear is all.

What really annoys me is that the popular thing at the moment is to keep rolling out the 'everyone hates 3D, so why are they forcing it on us' argument, as if somehow people that actually quite like 3D as a format should have their viewing options reduced to please others. Not something directly aimed at you, just an observation of how these 3D discussions usually go...


A study by L Mark Carrier, of California State University showed that most filmgoers do not in fact find any advantage to 3D and actually find it painful to watch and prefer to watch a 2D film if given the option. I think the question should be why are the majority of showings of certain films 3D and it is almost impossible to find a 2D version of the said film? There should be a balance so people can actually choose rather than forcing one on either side of the argument. Some like it (although they seem to be a vocal few from the evidence which is available) and a lot do not. Give both options equal balance so that the customer can choose. The IMAX 3D thing for Iron Man 3 being a case in point. I personally would like to see it on IMAX but find 3D a painful and unrewarding experience partially due to being short sighted so having to wear spectacle and partially because I have not come out of one 3D showing without a significant headache. As such I am going to try to find a 2D showing which it appears in Norwich does not exist.

A film shot in 3D and with thought to the 3D aspect can accentuate a film (Avatar for example may be a terrible film but looked gorgeous and the 3D assisted in that) but far too much is post processed 3D which does not work or accentuate.


Cant disagree with much of that, but like I say, these 'anti 3D' threads have the tendency to take on a 'I don't like 3D, no one likes 3D, they're stealing our 2D movies'. I can only go on the experience of the cinema I frequent (Cineworld Sheffield) but I've never noticed an issue when trying to find a 2D showing of a 3D film. Current 3D films, such as IM3 and GI Joe 2, have the option of both, and I've never known a 3D film to not have the alternative 2D. Dredd last year was an example I guess, as many complained they couldn't find a 2D showing, but for me, it would never have been a problem as it was available in the two formats. I've never known a 3D movie at Cineworld Sheffield to not have the 2D option. So, with that being the case, I suppose the issue is more with the multiplexes themselves, who are restricted due to screen numbers, who will have to make a choice of showing 2D or 3D rather than both. So, why people think the studio's are restricting viewing options I don't know. I've never seen the evidence of it, and I guess you only ever would if the cinema you go to is restricted by its screen numbers?


My intention in starting this thread wasn't to criticise 3D as a medium and for that reason alone - it's tremendously reductive to say I'm exaggerating the limitation of film showings because I don't like 3D. I'm going on personal experience that when I wanted to see a film in IMAX 2D - this is at the very same Cineworld Sheffield - I couldn't because there weren't any showings available in IMAX 2D, only in IMAX 3D, which is still the case. The evidence is right there - go on to the Cineworld website and look up the next big blockbuster this year, Star Trek Into Darkness. Apart from the Thursday May 9 showings (which I can't make) in which they are showing it in 2D, there isn't a single 2D showing for the next 5 days. It's as if the multiplexes are thinking to throw a few 2D showings in on the release days to appease people like me, before reverting to the more profitable medium. It's frankly naive to think that there isn't a form of studio/multiplex manipulation there; by limiting the medium to 3D there is a level of forcing there which will make people who usually prefer 2D still see the film in 3D anyway just because they have no option. And the argument that there are limited screens in a Cineworld as huge as Sheffield's just doesn't wash - 5 days for a marquee film and they can't fit in a single 2D showing? I don't want to have to explain why I don't like 3D since my reasons are numerous, but for me physiologically speaking I do get headaches related to my peculiar eyesight (had corrections when I was younger for being short sighted and longsighted in different eyes) when viewing 3D films and that reason is good enough alone for me to avoid 3D at the cinema. That the option for avoiding 3D seems to be diminishing is thus hugely frustrating, and I'm sure there are a lot of like minded people who aren't frothing at the mouth about hating 3D and prefer 2D for perfectly reasonable reasons.


_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 18
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 7:55:48 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield
KoZ, I understand for certain people headaches etc can be an issue and I've no issue with people being critical of the 'post convert everything!' style approach to the use of 3D, and I've got no problem with 2D and 3D sharing screen time. I have looked at Cineworld Sheffield schedule for the next week or so, but for showings after Thursday only STID is listed (3D and 3D IMAX) and I don't believe that is because STID will have no 2D showings, just that the schedules are not yet confirmed. I suspect STID, like IM3 will have a reasonable number of 2D showings to provide choice.

Do I think there is studio manipulation of showings, well yea I would expect there is to a degree, because they want as much return on their investment. But to suggest there is no choice is not really true. There is. There was suggestion that IM3 should've been given 2D IMAX showings, which is fair enough, but why then reduce the choice for the people that, like me, like 3D? Yea, you could split and do a 2D IMAX showing followed by 3D and so on, but as I say, I would expect it isn't cost effective to have a 3D IMAX print sat being unused.

I understand STID was filmed using the 3D cameras, with IM3 being a post conversion. I thought the IM3 conversion was borderline pointless and never really added anything, but from what I've seen of STID (the 9 minute preview, trailers etc) the 3D looks very well done, so I am looking forward to see how that turns out. A question regarding the use of various visual techniques... if a film maker chooses to make a film using a certain visual style, technique or whatever, do you not think the primary presentation method should be the one the director intends? So if Cameron wants people to see Avatar primarily in 3D, shouldn't that be the way to go? You wouldn't choose to ignore other specific choices being made by a director would you? I mean, would I colourise the black and white sections of Memento simply because I prefer colour? Obviously there are perfectly reasonable explanations for giving 3D a wide birth (headaches and eyesight issues - which I get, cos my missus is blind as a bat and really does prefer 2D when we visit the cinema but she loves 3D at home for the footie and darts). Just a thought

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to KnightofZyryab)
Post #: 19
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 9:12:23 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
But the choice appears to have been reduced for those who dislike or cannot cope with 3D (a study has shown 54.8% of viewers experience some form of physical discomfort of nausea(Solomini 2013) when watching a 3D film which is a high level). The fact that there is not the choice of 2D showings in the IMAX at all is essentially the elimination of choice for all those people. As studies have shown (Carrier, 2011), 3D is not the primary option of most cinema goers and is something being forced upon the majority. Whilst some films are made using 3D and it can in some cases be utilised as a tool most are simply there for the sake of it and for inflated prices. If it was an artistic choice (eg Avatar) then all well and good but for 98% of films which are produced in 3D (not an actual statistic but the majority of films are post processed or even when shot in 3D not that well shot too enhance the experience) are not artistic improvements on the 2D experience and in fact detract from the artistic vision of the film. I saw the 3D trailer for Man of Steel at the IMAX which I understand is being post converted and will only be available in the IMAX in 3D. From the trailer it was terribly layered and an awful conversion which is a true detraction from what may be a decent film. I know you cannot tell from a trailer but the Men in Black 3 trailer gave a perfect rendition of how badly the 3D was on that film in the final version. How many actual films have been released which actually use 3D as an attempted enhancement to the film. I can only think of Avatar and Hugo?

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 20
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 10:47:16 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

But the choice appears to have been reduced for those who dislike or cannot cope with 3D (a study has shown 54.8% of viewers experience some form of physical discomfort of nausea(Solomini 2013) when watching a 3D film which is a high level). The fact that there is not the choice of 2D showings in the IMAX at all is essentially the elimination of choice for all those people. As studies have shown (Carrier, 2011), 3D is not the primary option of most cinema goers and is something being forced upon the majority. Whilst some films are made using 3D and it can in some cases be utilised as a tool most are simply there for the sake of it and for inflated prices. If it was an artistic choice (eg Avatar) then all well and good but for 98% of films which are produced in 3D (not an actual statistic but the majority of films are post processed or even when shot in 3D not that well shot too enhance the experience) are not artistic improvements on the 2D experience and in fact detract from the artistic vision of the film. I saw the 3D trailer for Man of Steel at the IMAX which I understand is being post converted and will only be available in the IMAX in 3D. From the trailer it was terribly layered and an awful conversion which is a true detraction from what may be a decent film. I know you cannot tell from a trailer but the Men in Black 3 trailer gave a perfect rendition of how badly the 3D was on that film in the final version. How many actual films have been released which actually use 3D as an attempted enhancement to the film. I can only think of Avatar and Hugo?


So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D? I fully understand the need to have 2D and 3D, and I beleive there is still choice available, but where the required primary presentation is 3D it would make sense to me that the film makers choice (post conversion or not) is the primary way to present the film. Due to the limited number of IMAX screens, of course the decision will be made to use IMAX as the primary focus of 3D, 2D viewings are still available. I personally thought the MoS trailer looked good, and I have hope that the conversion is a success, I'll have to wait and see, but post conversion can be just as effective - see Titanic, Jurassic Park for two really good examples. I agree that there are not many films using 3D to enhance films, with most choosing to add 3D with little or no effort to change how the film plays - Iron man 3 being a very good example. However, when films do use it to enhance things on screen (Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus, Life of Pi - Life of Pi is utterly stunning in 3D and 2D is certainly te lesser experience) it can be incredible. Again, I am not saying there should be more or less 3D, or that I want 3D to phase out 2D. However, as I said before, 3D can be used as another tool in a filmakers arsenal to make really great movies, so why should it be dismissed as a gimmick and the choice of 3D be removed in favor of 2D. Balancing the choice is clearly the only way to go, sadly with IMAX, there will need to be restriction of one or the other due to the number of screens available, and cost will be a factor.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 21
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 11:10:54 PM   
DaveTheStampede

 

Posts: 247
Joined: 6/3/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

So, the alternative is what? An equal number of 2D and 3D showings, hopefully ensuring proper choice for all concerned?


Fixed that for ya.

_____________________________

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 22
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 5/5/2013 11:16:09 PM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5839
Joined: 26/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

KoZ, I understand for certain people headaches etc can be an issue and I've no issue with people being critical of the 'post convert everything!' style approach to the use of 3D, and I've got no problem with 2D and 3D sharing screen time. I have looked at Cineworld Sheffield schedule for the next week or so, but for showings after Thursday only STID is listed (3D and 3D IMAX) and I don't believe that is because STID will have no 2D showings, just that the schedules are not yet confirmed. I suspect STID, like IM3 will have a reasonable number of 2D showings to provide choice.



Could be, we'll have to check back later next week to see if that's the case. But if it's like 2 showings to 5 on average ratio, that is limited choice.

quote:



Do I think there is studio manipulation of showings, well yea I would expect there is to a degree, because they want as much return on their investment. But to suggest there is no choice is not really true. There is. There was suggestion that IM3 should've been given 2D IMAX showings, which is fair enough, but why then reduce the choice for the people that, like me, like 3D? Yea, you could split and do a 2D IMAX showing followed by 3D and so on, but as I say, I would expect it isn't cost effective to have a 3D IMAX print sat being unused.



I'm not suggesting there is entirely no choice, but speaking relatively the choice is limited. Also, to suggest that limiting the choice of 2D screenings would be at the expense of those who want to see films in 3D doesn't make sense - take Iron Man 3 IMAX 3D as an example again: how is providing say two 2D showings (when all of the showings are 3D) going to limit your choice when I didn't have the option to see it in IMAX 2D in the first place? The economics of this are a separate matter, but I can't imagine it would be at an astronomical cost to provide IMAX 2D prints as well as IMAX 3D. Mutiplexes have the prerogative to press 3D on the public, not the other way round, so 2D goers are the ones more likely to miss out than people who want to see anything in 3D.

quote:



I understand STID was filmed using the 3D cameras, with IM3 being a post conversion. I thought the IM3 conversion was borderline pointless and never really added anything, but from what I've seen of STID (the 9 minute preview, trailers etc) the 3D looks very well done, so I am looking forward to see how that turns out. A question regarding the use of various visual techniques... if a film maker chooses to make a film using a certain visual style, technique or whatever, do you not think the primary presentation method should be the one the director intends? So if Cameron wants people to see Avatar primarily in 3D, shouldn't that be the way to go? You wouldn't choose to ignore other specific choices being made by a director would you? I mean, would I colourise the black and white sections of Memento simply because I prefer colour? Obviously there are perfectly reasonable explanations for giving 3D a wide birth (headaches and eyesight issues - which I get, cos my missus is blind as a bat and really does prefer 2D when we visit the cinema but she loves 3D at home for the footie and darts). Just a thought


Some valid points and there is the deeper discussion here about director intentions and artistic vision, but I'm not thinking about whether it is a conversion or not; that is an entirely different matter that shouldn't really factor in audience choice. I also don't think it is a valid analogy by comparing 2D and 3D to the difference and impact of BW and colour. For starters it's not as if you can opt not to see a film which has black and white sections - the choice is clear cut with 2D and 3D. And with 3D, even if a director is trying to add something to the film I have found it rarely more than a superficial effect which adds nothing to the film apart from drawing attention to the medium. If we talk about cinematic evolution, the movement from black and white to colour is not remotely comparable to 3D, which I think apart from its vehement proponents (Cameron) many would disagree it is an evolution of any kind.

But overall as I'm getting at, I'm not arguing about the merits of 2D versus 3D, but that the offshoot of 3D films is to the detriment of cinema goers who want to see films in 2D.


_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 23
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 11:24:49 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

But the choice appears to have been reduced for those who dislike or cannot cope with 3D (a study has shown 54.8% of viewers experience some form of physical discomfort of nausea(Solomini 2013) when watching a 3D film which is a high level). The fact that there is not the choice of 2D showings in the IMAX at all is essentially the elimination of choice for all those people. As studies have shown (Carrier, 2011), 3D is not the primary option of most cinema goers and is something being forced upon the majority. Whilst some films are made using 3D and it can in some cases be utilised as a tool most are simply there for the sake of it and for inflated prices. If it was an artistic choice (eg Avatar) then all well and good but for 98% of films which are produced in 3D (not an actual statistic but the majority of films are post processed or even when shot in 3D not that well shot too enhance the experience) are not artistic improvements on the 2D experience and in fact detract from the artistic vision of the film. I saw the 3D trailer for Man of Steel at the IMAX which I understand is being post converted and will only be available in the IMAX in 3D. From the trailer it was terribly layered and an awful conversion which is a true detraction from what may be a decent film. I know you cannot tell from a trailer but the Men in Black 3 trailer gave a perfect rendition of how badly the 3D was on that film in the final version. How many actual films have been released which actually use 3D as an attempted enhancement to the film. I can only think of Avatar and Hugo?


So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D? I fully understand the need to have 2D and 3D, and I beleive there is still choice available, but where the required primary presentation is 3D it would make sense to me that the film makers choice (post conversion or not) is the primary way to present the film. Due to the limited number of IMAX screens, of course the decision will be made to use IMAX as the primary focus of 3D, 2D viewings are still available. I personally thought the MoS trailer looked good, and I have hope that the conversion is a success, I'll have to wait and see, but post conversion can be just as effective - see Titanic, Jurassic Park for two really good examples. I agree that there are not many films using 3D to enhance films, with most choosing to add 3D with little or no effort to change how the film plays - Iron man 3 being a very good example. However, when films do use it to enhance things on screen (Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus, Life of Pi - Life of Pi is utterly stunning in 3D and 2D is certainly te lesser experience) it can be incredible. Again, I am not saying there should be more or less 3D, or that I want 3D to phase out 2D. However, as I said before, 3D can be used as another tool in a filmakers arsenal to make really great movies, so why should it be dismissed as a gimmick and the choice of 3D be removed in favor of 2D. Balancing the choice is clearly the only way to go, sadly with IMAX, there will need to be restriction of one or the other due to the number of screens available, and cost will be a factor.


But isn't that what you are essentially stating is acceptable for the majority who do not want 3D? Why is it that the majority (as shown by the study mentioned) are forced to have to watch something which makes the majority feel uncomfortable and damages the viewing experience if they want to see something on the best screen? 2D showings are being pre-booked significantly faster than 3D showings (which often have more showings and at a more convenient time) even though they are often relegated to the poorer screens like some form of cinematic apartheid. Surely it would be more cost efficient to actually pander to the majority in this case and to provide them with what appears to be what they want, ie decent 2D showings in decent screens at decent times? You appear to be arguing against the elimination of choice for something you enjoy but for the elimination of choice for those who do not enjoy it or cannot enjoy it which the studies I have commented on show are in the majority? I have no problem with 3D being used when it is an enhancing experience but essentially the films you have listed are the number which are these and they are very, very few. It would be interesting to compare two IMAX screens in comparable cinemas one showing 2D and one 3D and see which had the most viewers.


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 24
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 1:06:42 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

But the choice appears to have been reduced for those who dislike or cannot cope with 3D (a study has shown 54.8% of viewers experience some form of physical discomfort of nausea(Solomini 2013) when watching a 3D film which is a high level). The fact that there is not the choice of 2D showings in the IMAX at all is essentially the elimination of choice for all those people. As studies have shown (Carrier, 2011), 3D is not the primary option of most cinema goers and is something being forced upon the majority. Whilst some films are made using 3D and it can in some cases be utilised as a tool most are simply there for the sake of it and for inflated prices. If it was an artistic choice (eg Avatar) then all well and good but for 98% of films which are produced in 3D (not an actual statistic but the majority of films are post processed or even when shot in 3D not that well shot too enhance the experience) are not artistic improvements on the 2D experience and in fact detract from the artistic vision of the film. I saw the 3D trailer for Man of Steel at the IMAX which I understand is being post converted and will only be available in the IMAX in 3D. From the trailer it was terribly layered and an awful conversion which is a true detraction from what may be a decent film. I know you cannot tell from a trailer but the Men in Black 3 trailer gave a perfect rendition of how badly the 3D was on that film in the final version. How many actual films have been released which actually use 3D as an attempted enhancement to the film. I can only think of Avatar and Hugo?


So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D? I fully understand the need to have 2D and 3D, and I beleive there is still choice available, but where the required primary presentation is 3D it would make sense to me that the film makers choice (post conversion or not) is the primary way to present the film. Due to the limited number of IMAX screens, of course the decision will be made to use IMAX as the primary focus of 3D, 2D viewings are still available. I personally thought the MoS trailer looked good, and I have hope that the conversion is a success, I'll have to wait and see, but post conversion can be just as effective - see Titanic, Jurassic Park for two really good examples. I agree that there are not many films using 3D to enhance films, with most choosing to add 3D with little or no effort to change how the film plays - Iron man 3 being a very good example. However, when films do use it to enhance things on screen (Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus, Life of Pi - Life of Pi is utterly stunning in 3D and 2D is certainly te lesser experience) it can be incredible. Again, I am not saying there should be more or less 3D, or that I want 3D to phase out 2D. However, as I said before, 3D can be used as another tool in a filmakers arsenal to make really great movies, so why should it be dismissed as a gimmick and the choice of 3D be removed in favor of 2D. Balancing the choice is clearly the only way to go, sadly with IMAX, there will need to be restriction of one or the other due to the number of screens available, and cost will be a factor.


But isn't that what you are essentially stating is acceptable for the majority who do not want 3D? Why is it that the majority (as shown by the study mentioned) are forced to have to watch something which makes the majority feel uncomfortable and damages the viewing experience if they want to see something on the best screen? 2D showings are being pre-booked significantly faster than 3D showings (which often have more showings and at a more convenient time) even though they are often relegated to the poorer screens like some form of cinematic apartheid. Surely it would be more cost efficient to actually pander to the majority in this case and to provide them with what appears to be what they want, ie decent 2D showings in decent screens at decent times? You appear to be arguing against the elimination of choice for something you enjoy but for the elimination of choice for those who do not enjoy it or cannot enjoy it which the studies I have commented on show are in the majority? I have no problem with 3D being used when it is an enhancing experience but essentially the films you have listed are the number which are these and they are very, very few. It would be interesting to compare two IMAX screens in comparable cinemas one showing 2D and one 3D and see which had the most viewers.



No, I am not suggesting a reduction of choice for anyone, I think youve misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

This whole thread was created suggesting that it was unfair that IM3 was only being shown in IMAX 3D, and couldnt be seen in IMAX 2D. I suggested that, specifically for IMAX, to have a split of 2D and 3D isn't going to be possible due to limited numbers of IMAX screens, and if the film makers dictate that the desired presentation method for IMAX is 3D, than so be it. I agreed that a way around it was a split of 2D/3D showings, but also conceded that it was unlikely to happen due to cost (and maybe logistics? how easy is it to switch between a 3D to 2D reel and back intraday?). As for other 2D/3D viewings, I genuinely don't see an issue, as, from my experience at my local, there is plenty to choose from in both categories.

This quote in my previous post;

So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D?

Was to highlight that, while people were moaning about their lack of choice, their solution was also running the risk of reducing choice for people that want 3D. The fact is, 3D is here to stay, and cinema chains and studios will need to strike a balance between the two. I personally feel they're doing a good job, again looking at the big 3D releases, I've seen plenty of opportunity for people to catch 3D and 2D. Like I say, it's harder with IMAX cos the multiplexes have just the single IMAX screen, what are they to do? I cant stress enough that I am suggesting there is a reduction in choice for 2D, but I am highlighting that, while you say I want to reduce choice, you're happy to reduce the 3D choice. Regardless of the studies, and your opinion on if 3D enhances a particular film, the fact is that the makers themselves are choosing to spend time and money on using the technology (some with far more success than others) and as such, need to push the technology to the general public. I would prefer if the studios were more selective and thoughtful in how they use it, presenting amazing uses of 3D (such as Life of Pi) on the best possible screens, rather than wasting time and money on shite that isn't likely to change anyones opinion of the format (IM3). Again, I full support a balance of availablilty of all formats and as I said before, I am simply wanting to give balance to the argument, as people that dont like 3D (for watever reason) are very vocal about having their desires catered for, well me, s a supporter of well used 3D technology, want to have my desires catered for too.



_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 25
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 1:12:09 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper



So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D?




Since studies have shown they are significantly in the minority why not?

Give them the options available to those who have a 2D preference when a big film is released ie fewer screenings mixed with less accessible times of viewing.

3D has been here to stay three times before.


< Message edited by sanchia -- 6/5/2013 1:13:58 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 26
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 1:17:31 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper



So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D?




Since studies have shown they are significantly in the minority why not?

Give them the options available to those who have a 2D preference when a big film is released ie fewer screenings mixed with less accessible times of viewing.

3D has been here to stay three times before.



So, rather than balance the two you suggest simply reducing the choice for supporters of 3D? I simply find this kind of suggestion a touch hypocritical.

And if a film maker chooses 3D as the desired presentation format, then what? Ignore that?


_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 27
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 2:08:43 PM   
KnightofZyryab


Posts: 5839
Joined: 26/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper



So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D?




Since studies have shown they are significantly in the minority why not?

Give them the options available to those who have a 2D preference when a big film is released ie fewer screenings mixed with less accessible times of viewing.

3D has been here to stay three times before.



So, rather than balance the two you suggest simply reducing the choice for supporters of 3D? I simply find this kind of suggestion a touch hypocritical.

And if a film maker chooses 3D as the desired presentation format, then what? Ignore that?



Look, how many people actually care about directorial intention (apart from film fans/aficionados)? Considering film as a form of mass entertainment for consumption, not everyone is thinking as deeply as that. And even if the director is using 3D for a specific purpose, it is still showing in 2D and therefore regardless of director intention it has to work in both visual presentations.


_____________________________

Imminent viewings : The Place Beyond the Pines

Read my blog at: http://alcentrodelaberinto.blogspot.com/

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 28
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 2:21:17 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18122
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper



So, the alternative is what? Reduce choice for those that want 3D?




Since studies have shown they are significantly in the minority why not?

Give them the options available to those who have a 2D preference when a big film is released ie fewer screenings mixed with less accessible times of viewing.

3D has been here to stay three times before.



So, rather than balance the two you suggest simply reducing the choice for supporters of 3D? I simply find this kind of suggestion a touch hypocritical.

And if a film maker chooses 3D as the desired presentation format, then what? Ignore that?



Actually I am for balancing (hence the smilies when I commented) but a fair balance for the 2D as well which is not happening with the big movies at the moment with 3D taking an distinct unfair preference in screen times, prevalence of screening and quality of screens over 2D. To be honest it is one of the reasons I barely go to the cinema any more as films I often want to see have only 3D viewings available at the times when I can go and I do not want to watch something which makes me feel ill and this is destroying the cinema experience for me and very probably for many, many others.

< Message edited by sanchia -- 6/5/2013 2:22:49 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 29
RE: Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? - 6/5/2013 3:16:52 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2607
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

Actually I am for balancing (hence the smilies when I commented) but a fair balance for the 2D as well which is not happening with the big movies at the moment with 3D taking an distinct unfair preference in screen times, prevalence of screening and quality of screens over 2D.


OK, I cant really comment on 3D taking an unfair advantage on screen quality, I mean I dont know how any one can? Is there info out there to suggest cinema chains are relegating 2D showings to inferior quality screens? That seems like an unfair claim, as I dont see how you can bac it up. Likewise screen timings, how do you back up the claim that chains are timing 2D screenings at more inconvenient times for the GA - because as I look through schedules at various Cineworld cinema's there is not much difference in timings for 2D vs 3D, they're all showing regularly throughout the day?

I just took a random look at 12 Cineworld Cinemas and their schedules for movies showing in both 2D and 3D tomorrow, there are only three films utilising 3D - IM3, The Croods and All Stars. There were 12 IMAX showings of IM3 in 3 cinemas, 4 in each. The other 9 cinemas did not have IMAX screens. There were then 96 showings of IM3 in standard 3D, with 76 in 2D. In 4 cinemas 2D showings outnumbered 3D. The Croods had 10 3D showings vs 23 2D and in every cinema the number of 2D outnumbered 3D. All Stars has 13 3D showings vs 25 2D. I mean, it looks like a fair balance to me just looking at schedules tomorrow at a small selection. So to say there is an unfair balance in favour of 3D, is, I don't think very fair. IM3's primary presentation method is 3D, so it's stands to reason there are more showings in that format, but nowhere is there a lack of 2D choice in the schedules I can see/be arsed to look at. I am sure a similar pattern will emerge for Star Trek and MoS, 2D will be very much available to those who wish to view them, likewise, 3D will be available for those that choose too.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> Iron Man 3 showing in IMAX 3D but not IMAX 2D? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.547