

Handy cheat sheet for 3D films: RealOrFake3D.com - philipkd
http://realorfake3d.com/

======
DEADBEEF
I predict that 'real' 3D movies will go the way 3D sound did years back.
'Fake' 3D will die out as the camera technology gets cheaper.

When Dolby surround first came onto the scene audiences were wowed by the
immersiveness that the surround sound added to movies.

Studios responded by 'faking' 3D sound for movies originally recorded only in
stereo. These didn't sound anywhere near as good as true surround sound and
audiences weren't impressed.

Eventually the equipment needed to shoot a movie in surround sound became
cheap enough that every production could take advantage of it.

I think we're seeing the cycle repeat itself.

Lets not forget that when colour film first came out studios attempted to add
colour to existing B&W films, this didn't work too well but eventually colour
film became cheap enough that they all used it.

------
axod
"moviegoers' craving for 3D films"

I'd love to see some surveys. I do not go to any 3D viewings and go to the 2D
ones instead (of which there are less), but they always seem completely packed
full. So presumably I'm not alone in hating the most recent 3D movie craze.

~~~
philipkd
Not sure about this year, but last year they accounted for 11% of ticket
sales:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-films-helped-boost-the-
box...](http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-films-helped-boost-the-box-
office-2010-3)

Also, watch Avatar in 3D. It made me a believer.

~~~
baddox
It made you a believer in the 3D technology used in Avatar.

~~~
philipkd
Hence the "Real" vs. "Fake" distinction. Although, a lot of natively shot 3D
films don't have nowhere near as much stereographic thought as Cameron
applied.

------
jokermatt999
My advice for haters of 3D: try seeing Toy Story 3 in 3D. It was made for 3D
and it doesn't use any of the usual cheap tricks associated with 3D (aka the
cliche throwing things at the audience). It mostly just seemed to really
enhance the depth of the picture and make it slightly more immersive. I agree
that 3D is still mostly a gimmick now, but I think it will eventually be used
mostly as a way to make the viewer feel like they're actually there, rather
than for the spectacle. Think of it this way: we didn't _need_ color movies,
but they tend to look nicer (unless of course you just prefer that old timey
look).

------
JacobAldridge
Having only seen two movies on this list ( _Avatar_ 'Real' and _Alice in
Wonderland_ 'Fake') my observation is hardly exhaustive, but there was a
definite difference in the 3D experience.

With _Avatar_ , the third dimension seem to come out at you from the screen -
I even had a cliched duck for cover at one point. With _Alice_ the third
dimension seemed to be depth in the screen - many shots felt like you were
figuratively looking down a rabbit hole, rather than being immersed within
one.

And for what it's worth, I don't mind paying a few bucks extra for the 3D
version, real or fake.

~~~
joshd
I think different 3D technologies could account for the in-ness and out-ness.
Where you at the same cinema both times?

~~~
JacobAldridge
Actually, it was - same specific cinema. But weeks / months apart which could
impact things - good thinking.

------
Maven911
I've been to a lot of movies and I think this list is very accurate, every
movie not originally intended for 3d was obvious on the big screen and the
glasses just ended up being extra weight on your nose, wish I had this list
earlier

------
kqr2
Roger Ebert : Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

[http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-
sh...](http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-
too.html)

~~~
msmith
That's a pretty good critique despite the inflammatory title. The MaxiVision48
process he mentions sounds pretty great as well. I definitely notice the
jerkiness in some scenes when in the theatre and it always pulls my attention
away from the film.

