Originally Posted by brazen1
I think a lot of folks rely on pop-out gimmicks when it comes to 3D and the lack of them, or too far and few between, looses their interest. It's like it's expected or 3D just doesn't add the wow effect and you might as well be watching 2D. I can see how these interest grabbing frames and scenes would be necessary for children as they have the least attention span
There's a clear difference between stating your opinion and views and playing word games to essentially put down everyone who disagrees with you such as having the attention span of a child or not appreciating the "immersion" of depth only effects, etc. This sort of "if people disagree with taste/views/opinions then they're basically an idiot" doesn't fly too well with me and that's exactly the impression I got from your post.
I have around 700 movies, about 150 of which are from before 1950 and over half of which are from before 1980. The fact I like some "immersion" beyond the "window frame" in 3D only speaks of what I like to see from 3D framing/depth choices, not movies in general, movie genres, plots or spectacles. I do not like most Michael Bay movies (save perhaps Bad Boys 1 & 2) nor did I find Pacific Rim particularly good in general, even though the 3D was lovely. I liked Predator and Jurassic Park long before there was ever a 3D version of them. But 3D is a CHOICE. Most 3D is not filmed with 3D cameras and even when it is, it's still a CHOICE how to frame any given shot in a given movie as to whether there's any "negative parallax" or not.
Yes, many movies use it as a "gimmick" and there's a reason they do that. It's very impressive looking. Overly doing it just for effect can grate over time. But not using it at all creates another ball of wax and that's the "It's a window" effect. I don't personally feel "immersed" when everything is always behind that window. The best use of 3D, in my OPINION, is when pop-out is used where appropriate. In retro-fits, this would be where it most makes sense (e.g. Arnold pulling his shotgun out on the bike in T2 after he pulls away from the fiery semi wreck would BEG for it to stick out of the screen, but because I already know James Cameron hates pop-outs, I think you'll just see the edge of the gun at or near the edge of the screen in this T2 3D release come August 25th (I hope I'm wrong). I find that a waste of a cool effect. It would be like using green screen CGI instead of a model when the model would look 10x more realistic (e.g. The Star Wars prequels look fakers than the original trilogy IMO despite having more details because much of it doesn't really look real and oddly sometimes it's the opposite as the "puppet" Yoda looked faker than the CGI in the first movie because the puppet wasn't well made). It has nothing to do with the story and nothing to do with whether the movie itself is any good. It has to do with whether I feel like 3D was used well and whether I want to bother putting on glasses to watch a given movie or not. If the 3D is poorly done, has tons of irritating crosstalk or makes no good use of 3D in blatant scenes, I might as well enjoy perfect 2D than flawed 3D and I think that is part of the reason 3D largely failed at home.
Too many cheap conversions and way way too many poor televisions that create exacerbate or even create crosstalk with overpriced active shutter glasses and little inter-compatibility with other brands to bring prices down. You've got 3D BDs that are 2-4x as much as the 2D versions and people on a budget have to make real choices there. Do they want one 3D title or 2-4 2D titles? Given the aforementioned considerations, clearly "most" chose 2D and price had a LOT to do with it, far more than having to put on glasses. People might be willing to pay a few more dollars a ticket to watch 3D at the theater but paying $25-30 for a 3D Blu-Ray when the 2D one is down to $8-12 doesn't fly too well with many people. I'm not crazy about paying these prices, but I'm enjoying 3D enough to do it anyway (based on the fact I just bought around 50 3D BDs in less than a month).
Oddly, the Pirates of the Caribbean comparison is kind of funny to me since I just got On Stranger Tides in 3D and there's hardly any crosstalk at all (whereas many newer films have far more crosstalk with my Epson projector). Even the opening Disney Castle was "neat" because the flag flapping on top it created a relatively rare centered surround effect as it panned into view that passed just over my head with my "now" improperly placed side surrounds that are 2/3 the way up the side-walls (does that make the movie better? No, but it's a nice surround effect).
What's extra amusing there to me in regards to all the "Atmos" talk that side surrounds placed above ear height or using bipoles (mine are both) are "obsolete" is that I just watched a few movies with helicopters (Pacific Rim) and other aircraft (The Rocketeer) and even without a Dolby Atmos mix and without height speakers, all such aircraft already sound like they're above my head due to that speaker placement and because the screen itself is above eye level in my room, surround effects that might normally seem too high all match up on the screen regardless. In short, I don't see where Atmos would provide much more immersion in that setup. Lowering the surrounds would put ear-level effects below screen level and ceiling speakers might at best raise the height of aircraft "higher" in the room. This is why I talked about greater need for speaker placement flexibility in the Atmos thread (and on another site called AVForums).
When screen size, screen height and watching locations can vary, what works best in one room doesn't always work best in another. But you will get plenty of people arguing with you that it simply MUST be done just this way or it will sound like crap. Yeah, I don't believe comments like that. Room interactions and speaker variations are nearly endless and what sounds fantastic to one person won't to all people (I use ribbon dipoles in my 2-channel room and some people HATE dipole speakers. To me, they sound utterly real compared to "box" speakers due to the placement of sounds in 3D space by the 3-dimensional wavefront. But others will argue that having it sound "real" in your particular room defeats the point of recreating the actual room it was recorded in despite the fact that 2-channel recordings cannot accurately recreate the original locale anyway (unless it's a binaural recording and you listen with headphones).
So I say to each their own. I have no problem with other people liking different things from me. I do
have a problem when they imply I'm like a child for appreciating the occasional object flying out of the screen in a 3D movie. In the case of Jaws 3D, the 3D effects are better than the movie itself which was just OK at best, IMO. Could it get old? Yes, if i watch Jaws 3D several times in a row it gets old, but then so do most movies.