Should I see The Hobbit in 3D?

Just saw it, but someone else wants to go. I'm wondering if I should see the 3D version to compare.

For reference, I absolutely HATED the 3D in Avatar. Looked awful-either totally exaggerated, or I was horribly aware of things towards the "front" of the frame that weren't in focus and of course couldn't be focused. Hugo to me looked too much 3D, somehow exaggerated.

The only 3D I liked (and I haven't seen many) is Up and also U2 3D. Those I felt just looked natural, no "3D-ness" about them really.

 

it's all comes down to how important that "someone" is to you.

 

The Hobbit (Smaug) is pretty low-key 3D. It felt like Peter Jackson got tired of trying to think of interesting 3D angles and just shot it like a regular film. Honestly, I don't think it will bother you, the 3D was pretty much an afterthought.

 

Higher frame rate, yes.

 

I wish I could see it in HFR without the 3D.

 

I saw it in Ultra AVX HFR 3D and thought it was great - except for the fact that sometimes HFR looks too much like hi definition videotape.

 

Saw it in 3D and I don't think the extra euros paid were worth the close ups of insects flying near your face.

 

This was one of those films (for me) where I kept forgetting it was in 3D, as the effect was used so little. I'd save your money and see it flat.

 

Saw it in IMAX Hfr. Thought it looked great

 

It is more important to see it in a theater with the best sound system.

 

Really on the fence about this one.

I'm beginning to think our local IMAX screen is too close to the audience, because at the first one, just about every "gee-whillickers" effect kept breaking up into a double-image for me. Although I have to admit, the one "planning" scenein
the Elven Kingdom - which looked like a diorama straight outta Maxfield Parrish! - was great. Just looked a bit too close, kind of like the difference between seeing a play from the 5th row, and seeing it from the aisle IN FRONT of Row 1.




Now playing on Ariel Stream: Afro Celt Sound System - Lovers Of Light

 

I've been seeing them in 2D because I wanted consistency with the LOTR movies.

But if you saw the first one in 3D...I'm afraid you're in too deep, you have to keep going!

 

Saw the Hobbit in HFR 3D, and thought it was a very interesting experience and worth doing - once. I saw Hobbit 2 today in good ol' 2D, and was totally satisfied bagging the 3D this time around.

Oh, I also watched the 2D Hobbit on my 55" Panny plasma via Blu-ray a couple months ago, and I think I enjoyed it overall more than the HFR 3D experience in the theater. I think the HFR 3D was too much of a distraction for me, and I could concentrate on the story better without it. The 2D Blu looked and sounded great on my HT system.

 

I still feel like I need to see something in HFR with just 2D to get a handle on whether I really like it or not. Will we ever get something in Hi-Frame Rate without the 3D effects?

 

You could do like I did and bring an patch to cover one eye.

I can't see 3D. I can see out of both eyes just fine, but I don't see the stereo effect.

 

They say that about 10% of the population is either irritated by 3D movies, can't see it, or both. I can see it just fine, but I think the brightness sucks. They have to solve this problem before it's really going to work well for theatrical motion pictures. And I think we are going to see this solved in the next year or two.

 

The new laser illuminated projectors are supposed to take care of the problem. But the problem with doing any mainstream films in 3D is that there will always be those of use who just can't see it.

It has been a fad several times before, and it is a fad currently. And like all fads, it will disappear.

 

Don't think that would work. I saw it in HFR 3D yesterday, and thinking about your message, took off my glasses and closed one eye. I still saw a double image. I put my hand over the eye as well, and still saw a double image.

I still want to see something in 2D show using the HFR process. I like the detail it shows, but with the 3D and so much CGI in a movie like The Hobbit, it makes it hard to really know whether I'd like the look as opposed to 35mm film. I wish there were a regular non-effects laden picture shown in HFR.

 

I had the eye patch on under my regular glasses, which was under the 3D glasses.

Yes, it was as uncomfortable as it sounds. I only do this when a film is not offered in 2D, like the Peter Gabriel "New Blood Orchestra" theatrical presentation. (WORST. 3D. EVER.)

 

Can't wait to see it at home.

 

What you really need to see 3D in 2D is a pair of "3D" glasses where the right and left lenses are the same polarization. If you took two pairs of 3D glasses and swapped the left lens from one pair into the right lens of the other pair, you should have two of the same lens in each pair. Then you would only see one of the two images in the 3D presentation. You would still be losing the brightness though. With the plastic glasses in the theatre this is probably not possible because I doubt the lenses are easy to remove...but it would be nice to have a pair like that.

 

If a movie is truly shot in 3D I'll usually pay the premium to see it in 3D. If a movie is shot in 2D and converted to 3D in a computer, I go to see it in 2D.

I don't understand why people gripe about the 3D in Avatar. It was one of the complaints I didn't have about the movie.

 

My gripe was that far too often it looked like 21/2D, ie it appeared layered with an extreme foreground layer, a middleground layer and a background layer (like one of those pop-up picture books). I'm sure most people wouldn't have noticed, but it was very evident to me (some scenes more than others).

 

You can buy a pair of "2D" glasses like you describe here:

http://www.2d-glasses.com/

Derek

 

Well, in the 50s and 80s, it lasted about a year or two each time. Currently, the new trend is about 9 years old and 3-d movies keep on coming. So it's dying like the vinyl record.