Hugo - Page 3

I have to admit I've never seen that film in 3D

You're probably right, but I'll give it another try or two. Meanwhile, be happy that you can safely say 3D is not a meaningless gimmick... for you.

My copy of Hugo 3D finally arrived so looking forward to checking it out some time this weekend!

To be honest, I never thought that I'd care about 3D, but seeing Avatar in 3D changed my mind about it. Hopefully, this movie won't disappoint.

I feel like a knock-off perfume salesman, but... if you like the 3D in Avatar, I think you'll love the 3D in Hugo.

Frank, you owe yourself a ticket to see it in 3D.

I watched the film in 2D but it seemed the concept they used was like those "pop up books" which I though worked fairly well and may be novel because usually 3D is gimmicky and I've never seen that concept used before.

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.

Mark

I hope what's not lost in this discussion is that Hugo is really good movie that looks and sounds great on this (2D) Blu-ray.

That is only your opinion. Remember that.

But is consistant with many many others !

Art

Many? A dozen fanatics on an Internet forum? It's still just an opinion.

So you think the opinion that 3D now is just another gimmick is limted to a few folks here ?

You need to get out more !

There have been numerous polls quoted on national news sites confirming the sentiment.

"Only 22 percent of viewers said that they felt that 3D improved their cinema experience. Around 41 percent viewed 3D as nothing more than a gimmick whilst 19 percent said that 3D improved the quality of the movies that they saw. A significant 47 percent said that they felt that 3D made no difference to them, or made their cinema experience worse."

Source: YouGov

These types of results are all over the place.


Art

The American Consumer is Rejecting 3D: Will Hollywood Listen to Consumers vs. Forcing 3D on Us?

Just finished watching Hugo 3D and while the cinematography and 3D effects were beautifully done (there was a bit of ghosting in a few scenes), the story itself kind of drags on. I'll try to watch it again in 3D, and then one more time in 2D before deciding whether or not this blu-ray disc was money wasted.

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.

That is the key....and increasing brightness so colors can "pop."

A proper calibration will negate the brightness issue. The complaints about are hallow.

Most of what is posted in AVS Forum or just about any other internet forum is opinion, not fact. And yes, that is my opinion.

I've seen quite a few 3D movies, including Hugo (fact), and I have been fooled into thinking 3D will enhance the film too many times (opinion), so I will not continue to spend money (fact) on this gimmicky fad (opinion).

There isn't any way in the world you can state that it isn't a gimmick as if it is any sort of fact either. My opinion is that it is and like most find it a distraction and time and effort poorly spent at least in films.

Art

People are already doing that in droves. I like to keep an open mind, so even though I haven't yet seen a non-gimmicky 3D implementation (including Hugo), I'm willing to keep trying it. I apologize if my open mind is causing you to suffer. I like to think that people like me giving 3D an even chance are allowing 3D to stay alive for a few more months for the benefit of people who have the minority opinion that it is not a gimmick.

had relative visiting from aussie this week so wasn't able to get out to see it in 3d during the week. planned on going friday night but look up the cinema near me and it's gone. nearest 3d showing was 25 miles away and i didn't feel like driving.

so redboxed the b.r. and watched last night. beautiful, engaging, creative presentation. scorcese did a brilliant job. the look he gave the movie was stunning. very nice blu ray transfer as well.

i loved it. the artist had better clearly be a better movie cause, right now, hugo is my favorite of last year.

Sorry, did you really mean to use the word "hallow"?

I guess that's your opinion. It would be my opinion that I've yet to see any display technology that would not benefit from additional brightness, lumens, when displaying 3D regardless of calibration; commercial or domestic.

No, I did not. iPhone typo.

gimmick: a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

As I said, 3D is a gimmick! It adds NOTHING to my enjoyment of a movie. Rather, it detracts from the enjoyment.

And that's a FACT!

Mark

That'd good to hear. I should be watching my copy tomorrow night.

It's your opinion. Get it straight.

Damn its like we got a playground here where 3d naysayers turn opinions into facts. For all I know 5.1 is a gimmick too

Well, I think you're correct with this statement. The introduction of "Talkies" was a gimmick as well.

I think the point here is the difference of opinion as to whether 3D has or adds value. 3D has no comparison to the value that the introduction of sound brought to movies. Stereo surround sound brought a presence and enrichment to film as we know it today and I believe would be missed if taken away. I can't say that about 3D.

For my money 3D a is novelty. It's like going to a traveling carnival and paying $12.00 to see a three headed snake floating in an old pickle jar full of formaldehyde. How many times will you do that? If you enjoy 3D, more power to you. But I think the novelty is wearing off for most.

HUGO is a fun movie, I enjoyed it.

Watched the 2D BD tonite.

The video is as good as anything I can recall on the format.
The audio is also very good, but not quite on the same level as the video (IMO).

I could see where 3D was probably employed (hey, I have an imagination).
Although I did buy the 3D/2D combo, at the moment, I don't have the necessary hardware needed to check out the 3D presentation (I will at some point).

What did you think about the film itself?