Anything Goes : Poll of the day by Luis R. Quintero

First background. When our last big screen TV died (Spring 2011) we splurged and bought a 73" 3D HD TV with all the whistles. Buying online and shopping carefully we purchased the set at 1/2 price off (no shipping/tax). We then shopped for the needed glasses, transmitter, 3D BluRay player (with free Avatar 3D disc) and extras... also saving over 50% off on everything. It pays to shop around and be patient, bargain. We signed on with a satellite service that offered a large number of High Def and 4 3D channels. We already had a good surround sound system built into our ceiling and walls We have a super home entertainment system. I buy 3D BluRays at the lowest price I can (when on sale and some times, not when first released). Generally @ $20.00 - $24.00. We now have about 20 movies in 3D. I LOVE 3D. The quality on our set is as good or better than on IMax due to NOT being polarized 3D imagery but actual separation of image 60X a second between left and right eye. I watch 3D over and over. The 2D to 3D conversion is not as impressive and gets old fast ( this is where the 3D player takes a 2D disc, either BluRay or SD DVD and converts to 'faux' 3D). 3D will never replace 2D in theaters or home entertainment. I do, however think that 3D will be around for the next decade. I have watched football, basketball as well as a wide assortment of educational and entertainment programing in 3D. Many others have watched on my system and all are in awe. As long as a buck can be made off of 3D, it will be made.

Not sold that it's here to stay. The conversions, with few exceptions, have been awful. The new 3D films have mostly underwhelmed. I think your superhero, disaster movies, etc, will be presented in 3D for the foreseeable future, but I don't see the product taking over the multiplex.

I've yet to watch anything in 3D, I prefer things that don't pop out the screen to try and eat me... lol

Keep in mind that there are several ways to create 3D in production. Avatar, Resident Evil and more recent films like John Carter SHINE in 3D, in part due to the style of the quality 3D production work. Also as 3D gets over the 'newness' and relies more on the real feel in imagery, people's notions will probably change. John Carter in 3D was a perfect example. The landscapes really looked 3D REAL. Not fake. With everything from THE AVENGERS to PROMETHEUS coming out in quality 3D... can't wait to see them. But time WILL tell. As long as a buck can be made off of 3D, it will be made.

I agree, if people are buying they will make it. Can't wait for Prometheus as well. :)

I've been compelled to see exactly one film in 3D and that was Hugo...It was stunning. Having said that, it didn't make me any more inclined to see out a film strictly because it was filmed in 3D.

I am SOOO not a 3D guy. AVATAR was an immense disappointment whereas HUGO was a wondrous film. The difference wasn't the 3D. The difference was in the story and story-telling. I've never been impressed by BLING. But I respect the technology and I enjoy the visual aspects of movies that are obviously made for just that. But is it here to stay? I think it is because with the rapid advancement of technology, soon it'll be possible to make 3D standard, no glasses needed. at that point, who cares. Gotta just deal with it.

I will add that I am not a fan of 3D. I don't hate it with a burning, destructive passion, but I am quite resistant where it is concerned. I'm the same way with computer animation. It stems from a concern that we may eventually lose the skill and respect for the 2D medium. Plus I wear regular glasses, and 3D glasses don't fit over them dagnabbit!

I'm not a fan of 3D. I saw Hugo in 3D and it didn't make one bit of difference to the overall look of the film. You get movies like "the Last Airbender (which was horrible in its own right..I could write a book on that one) which makes it totally look like an afterthought and then you get Titanic..which I just don't understand the reasoning behind that except money. Unless the theater in interactive like in the old days with moving chairs and physical effects to enhance the 3D...its totally pointless.

I'm one of those people who gets nauseated trying to watch 3D. Too much stimulation, I guess. So I hope 3D doesn't supplant 2D. It would be really bad to be writing for the movies and not be able to go to them.

3D should only be used for animated kids movies or big special effects sci-fi movies. Half of the 3D movies that came out since Avatar have been horrible and unnecessary, filmmakers are thinking that if they make it 3D it will sell but thats not the case at all

I am a big fan of 3D movies in fact I just saw the Titanic in 3D last night it was amazing and it gave it more character I thought. And most of your audience these days are kids my age, I will be 15 in September. I do think 3D would probably replace 2D I hope this helps! (:

3D at best is an intermediate technology. I think the last word on this will be 4D or virtual reality, audience inside the movie kinda experience.

3D replace 2D? Never happen. I do not think any one is suggesting that 3D will ever replace 2D. However, 3D on some movies will always be an option as long as an extra dollar can be made off of 3D.

3D is here to stay, but not all films need to be seen in 3D. I have noticed that some theaters are taking away the 2D option for some films, so you have to see some movies in 3D only.

3D will replace 2D films but it will take a large number of years.

the other point to make is that 3d has been around for a hundred years (almost as long as cinema itself) there's a reason it hasn't been viewed as a serious medium.

My two dimes: Yes and no. I think it depends on the project. If it's a high seeking adventure movie with unfathomable landscape and eye gripping creatures --ugly, or majestic looking-- then, yes. But if it's a teenage love story, a drama with low costing budget then, no.

3d is still a novelty, a gimmick, a fair ground ride. It's going to take some very good filmmakers and a lot of time to change that.

Next you'll be saying that talkies and "color" will take over the theatres. Balderdash! Gimmicks, I say, gimmicks!

I gotta say ^^^ this made me laugh!

yea, that mushy vibrancy, turn that racket down some of us are trying to nap. anywho, 3d is the future and i think it will replace 2d eventually, but that won't happen over night, the future has to earn its past.

3D is most definately here to stay, but it would be a mistake to think it will ever replace 2D. There is room for both definitions in theatres in my opinion. Some films lend themselves better to 3D and some to 2D. I wonder if the same questions where asked when colour came about?

2D is better. I see most movies in their 2D option. 3D is a gimmick and somewhat annoying unless the GLASSES are changed into VISORS that expand the field of vision. Wearing square lenses like normal Clark Kent glasses is absurdly antiquainted. Our vision experience should be widened to include peripherally in 3D too, i.e. visors.

And now this... http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/martin-scorsese-and-ang-lee-tell-theater...

Some people get sick watching 3D. I think it will remain an option. Not the main feature.