Up - Page 17

Alex · 06-15-2009, 10:29 AM

My preference would be 2D and I haven't seen it that way. The new glasses they had (at least at my theater) were not very comfortable since they had temples that actually wrapped around my ears but weren't quite "one size fits all." If I had been wearing glasses I don't know that I could have worn the 3D glasses at all.

Fortunately the brightness seemed reasonably well compensated for the glasses but still a bit dimmer than I'd prefer (and I'd imagine that a lot of theaters, with how they try to skimp on bulbs probably are running it way too dark).

innerSpaceman · 06-15-2009, 10:38 AM

I hated the new glasses.

I think i said so before, but the 3-D enhanced only the initial house-flying scenes, imo. And darkened the picture significantly ... which I noticed by taking the glasses on and off a lot during the film, because they bugged me.

2-D gets the nod from me.

ok, with a second viewing and a little time under my wing, the obligatory Pixar Ranking:

#1 - The Incredibles

2. - Toy Story

3. - Finding Nemo

4. - Ratatouille

5. - Monsters, Inc.

6. - UP

7. - Wall-E

BIG, BIG DROP OFF ....

8. - Cars

9. - Toy Story 2

10. - A Bugs Life

Cadaverous Pallor · 06-15-2009, 10:58 AM

The glasses fit me perfectly....but most glasses don't fit me.

wolfy999 · 06-15-2009, 11:05 AM

I wear glasses and had no problem with the 3D ones fitting over nicely.

innerSpaceman · 06-15-2009, 11:50 AM

My companion who wore glasses enjoyed that the 3-D glasses fit comfortablyl over her real glasses.

I, who do not wear glasses, found them really uncomfortable.

Alex · 06-15-2009, 12:33 PM

For me, the temples were very tight against my head and the bridge was very high on my nose. Not much room for glasses in there. But yeah, I imagine most women and men with heads smaller than mine would have been fine.

I just think that there' no need for a deeply curved temple. It isn't like they need to stay on through vigorous activity.

flippyshark · 06-15-2009, 04:03 PM

I personally don't see much point to 3-D UNLESS it is used for gratuitous "cheap 3D tricks." I've been to several Disney 3D releases now, and the novelty wears away quickly. The best I can say is that most of teh time, I don't care that it's there, and occasionally, I'm annoyed by it.

On the other hand, I was tickled by My Bloody Valentine, because it was such a shameless in-your-face spookhouse.

I've heard several filmmakers, like Peter Jackson and James Cameron, insist that 3D simply IS the future of motion picture exhibition, btu I'd honestly be very surprised if that turns out to be the case.

UP was just lovely in 2D.

innerSpaceman · 06-15-2009, 04:10 PM

3-D will only become the defacto way to view movies if the glasses aren't needed.

Are those two bozos kidding? Widespread acceptance of viewing paraphenalia on your head for everything you watch. Um, yeah, sure.

Strangler Lewis · 06-15-2009, 04:48 PM

You can already see marvelous entertainment in 3D without glasses.

It's called . . . [cue John Gielgud/Linda Hunt voice]

theatre.

flippyshark · 06-15-2009, 05:11 PM

Now if more theater would stoop to gratuitous 3-D nudity and violence. Mmmm ...

06-15-2009, 10:29 AM	#161
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	My preference would be 2D and I haven't seen it that way. The new glasses they had (at least at my theater) were not very comfortable since they had temples that actually wrapped around my ears but weren't quite "one size fits all." If I had been wearing glasses I don't know that I could have worn the 3D glasses at all. Fortunately the brightness seemed reasonably well compensated for the glasses but still a bit dimmer than I'd prefer (and I'd imagine that a lot of theaters, with how they try to skimp on bulbs probably are running it way too dark).
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 10:38 AM	#162
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I hated the new glasses. I think i said so before, but the 3-D enhanced only the initial house-flying scenes, imo. And darkened the picture significantly ... which I noticed by taking the glasses on and off a lot during the film, because they bugged me. 2-D gets the nod from me. ok, with a second viewing and a little time under my wing, the obligatory Pixar Ranking: #1 - The Incredibles 2. - Toy Story 3. - Finding Nemo 4. - Ratatouille 5. - Monsters, Inc. 6. - UP 7. - Wall-E BIG, BIG DROP OFF .... 8. - Cars 9. - Toy Story 2 10. - A Bugs Life
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 10:58 AM	#163
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	The glasses fit me perfectly....but most glasses don't fit me.
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 11:05 AM	#164
wolfy999 Eyes like Sapphires! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2.4 miles from Disneyland Posts: 1,523	I wear glasses and had no problem with the 3D ones fitting over nicely. __________________ Diane "Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." - George Carlin 1937-2008 DISNEY IS FINALLY PAYING ME BACK......STILL OWES ME ABOUT (oh, wait....way too much)!
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 11:50 AM	#165
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	My companion who wore glasses enjoyed that the 3-D glasses fit comfortablyl over her real glasses. I, who do not wear glasses, found them really uncomfortable.
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 12:33 PM	#166
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	For me, the temples were very tight against my head and the bridge was very high on my nose. Not much room for glasses in there. But yeah, I imagine most women and men with heads smaller than mine would have been fine. I just think that there' no need for a deeply curved temple. It isn't like they need to stay on through vigorous activity.
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 04:03 PM	#167
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	I personally don't see much point to 3-D UNLESS it is used for gratuitous "cheap 3D tricks." I've been to several Disney 3D releases now, and the novelty wears away quickly. The best I can say is that most of teh time, I don't care that it's there, and occasionally, I'm annoyed by it. On the other hand, I was tickled by My Bloody Valentine, because it was such a shameless in-your-face spookhouse. I've heard several filmmakers, like Peter Jackson and James Cameron, insist that 3D simply IS the future of motion picture exhibition, btu I'd honestly be very surprised if that turns out to be the case. UP was just lovely in 2D.
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 04:10 PM	#168
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	3-D will only become the defacto way to view movies if the glasses aren't needed. Are those two bozos kidding? Widespread acceptance of viewing paraphenalia on your head for everything you watch. Um, yeah, sure.
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 04:48 PM	#169
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	You can already see marvelous entertainment in 3D without glasses. It's called . . . [cue John Gielgud/Linda Hunt voice] theatre. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

06-15-2009, 05:11 PM	#170
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	Now if more theater would stoop to gratuitous 3-D nudity and violence. Mmmm ...
	Submit to Quotes