Monday, May 30, 2011

Movie Madness: The Curse of the 3-D

This weekend, the DH and I were planning to take the kids to see the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie. It was a relatively free weekend, with only a few baseball/fastpitch practices scheduled and no tournaments or games. (Yes, our lives revolve around spring sports for a few months each year.)

So we figured we could take the kids to the early show, have a fun family outing, and be done in time for all-star tryouts in the late afternoon.

(Did I mention spring sports = no life? Yeah.)

Then I checked the movie listings. The first 2-D screening of the movie isn't scheduled until almost 2 pm, far too late for us to go. In fact, there are twice as many screenings of the 3-D version as the regular version.

I understand why the theaters push the 3-D version. Its the latest greatest, the new big deal, the shiny distracting thing. It's also the moneymaker, since they can charge more for tickets. Unfortunately, it's also losing its shine with the moviegoing public. Word is that more than 60% of ticket sales for POTC 4 were for the non-3-D version.

Personally, I can't do 3-D. I've tried, and every time I leave the theater nauseated and with a massive headache. And most of the time, I haven't been overwhelmed by the 3-D experience itself.

So we're skipping the movie, sad to say, and hoping we can squeeze it in another day before it leaves theaters altogether.

Do you have a preference when it comes to 3-D vs non-3-D? What's your take?


Hayley said...

3D is the bane of my existence!

The only time I've ever enjoyed the use of 3D has been in Tron Legacy, because Tron films are all about the effects and 3D Jeff Bridges makes me happy. Every other time I've seen something in 3D, it's just been a pointless waste of money and didn't add anything to the experience at all (I didn't watch Avatar, but for different reasons).

As a film graduate, I'm always excited to see pioneering new technology in cinema, but used right. 3D technology is great if used for a reason, not just for a 10 minute sequence in Harry Potter or something.

PG Forte said...

ROFL! It's just occurred to me that I don't generally watch the kind of movie that has a 3D version. you still need to wear the special glasses?

Anyway, I'd vote for 2D. If I want to view something in 3D, I'll go see a live play.

traci said...

We took the kids to see "Kung Fu Panda" yesterday in 2D. Every time I buy 3D tickets, I'm underwhelmed by the effects, and I've just spent about $40 more for us to go. It's just not worth it. And yet yesterday, I was toying with the idea. Checking the bank account and the times, 2D won out. And I'm glad we did it, because it was still great! And yes, I escaped without the headache!

Meg Benjamin said...

I wear glasses and I'm convinced I'll never be able to fit 3D specs over my own. So I just haven't tried it.

Jen B. said...

I'm like you. They make me ill. Worse, yhey cost extra to make me ill!

Juniper Bell said...

Our nearest 3D theater is 250 miles away, so luckily we don't have to grapple with this issue. The day they invent 3D for DVD's, we're in trouble though! LOL

Kelly Jamieson said...

Sometimes 3D is very cool, but it can't be gratuitous. I have leaped out of my seat as something hurtles towards me because it seems so real. I've heard though that POTC isn't that great in 3D and probably just as well viewed without.

daydrmzzz said...

I'm not a 3D fan at all but hubby wanted to go see POTC and the only showing left was a 3D one so we did it. The glasses have change quit a bit so they didn't bother my eyes (as much). While the movies wasn't bad at all in 3D, hubby and I both said that we would have saved our money on this one and done 2D. now transformers on the other hand we will be doing in 3D, previews just looked too cool.