Originally Posted by Mark Booth
Same here! I saw Avatar in 3D in the theater twice, once in Real D (or whatever it's called) and once in IMAX. The glasses were annoying (don't dare move your head from side to side) and dazzling would NOT be the word I'd used to describe the 3D. "Interesting" is more like it. Then I saw it a third time in the theater in 2D. A MUCH more enjoyable experience. And I felt the 2D Blu-ray was just as enjoyable.
3D is a gimmick. But the arguments will continue. Just like my parent's generation argued over quadraphonic. This too shall pass.
Well then, I'm of that generation. People really didn't argue about quadraphonic sound as I recall. You either invested in it or you didn't.
Quadraphonic sound was a huge fustercluck; technical problems, format incompatibilities, and expensive (I guess you could say kind of like 3D). It was a nice idea that was pretty much incompatible with vinyl records and it died a quick death. It was not until Dolby Surround married to VHS cassettes in the early 80's did 4 channel sound stand a chance.
Ironically and arguably, the best implementation of quadraphonic sound during the 60's and 70's was not done on any recorded media but was the live performance of "Dark Side of the Moon" by Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd was a pioneer in multi-channel sound engineering and the development of equipment that would allow for discreet channel steering. Pink Floyd's performance still gives me goose bumps to think about it today.
When display technology can produce 3D without glasses, 3D movies may have a chance. I'm really more interested in a good story presented with good acting; it does more for my imagination than having something jump in my face.
We started to watch "Hugo" in 2D last night, but the storm here in Michigan took out our power. We'll try it again tonight as we just got our power back. 2D "Hugo" looked excellent on our 10 foot wide screen.