Shared publicly  - 
I saw Avengers last night. I intentionally went to the 2D-not-3D showing. Anyone else do the same?

Claudio Perez Gamayo's profile photoMichael Newell's profile photoMunawar Mannan's profile photoNoah Porch's profile photo
2D for me as well. The movie is the same why pay more for a headache.
I saw both versions. The 3D was really good, but when it is done bad in other movies, it is a real distraction. The trailer to Spiderman in 3D made me think that the fast moving action could get annoying in 3D.
I've only watched the 3D version, which wasn't all that terrible. +Paul Puri, I'm with you on the Spiderman trailer. I had to look away a few times because it was too much.
3D was awesome! The problem is doing 3D for the sake of doing 3D. As the initial craze dies out and creative minds figure out good use for the new tech they can use, we'll have better experience :)
I saw it in 3D. 3D is entirely dependent on how well it's done.

The Avengers 3D was fairly decent. Better than other post-conversions. Not nearly as good as native 3D movies like Avatar or Megamind. But far better than most post-converts.
I went for 2D instead of 3D and loved it.
Im going see it in 2D because i will have my one year old son with me. I don't want to destroy his eyes. If it was just me 3D IMAX all the way.
Only option a the time was 3D - half way through - forgot it was even in 3D. I would have gone 2D if the showing times matched up with my free time.
2D here. After getting the 3DS and a 3D TV, I've gotten over the hype pretty fast lol
3D is crap. I am waiting for holographic movies.
Local whatever-in-movies-industry-monopoly didn't even give us a choice - 3D only in Israel.
I went to the 2d showing Friday night and bypassed the lines and got pretty good seats. It was still full by the time the show started, but there wasn't all the craziness involved before hand. The only movie that should be seen in 3d is avatar.
+Daves Williams It's downright blinding when they start those projectors up, and a little disconcerting for the first few minutes. I definitely agree it's not for kids.
I went to the imax 3D as that is what my freinds where wanting to go to. It was my first new 3D movie im unimpressed.
I plan on seeing it in 3D, yea 3D can be done poorly but it can also be done really well. I'll be glad when all the blanket 3D whiners just accept that it's here and being used by real film makers, everyone's life will be easier.

Hey guys, we don't think you're leet or cool for not wanting to watch the movie how the creators intended. Usually you just come off as pretentious for the sake of it.

Most 3d is done poorly. I think that is the point.
+Jarom Banks Honestly, you've got to see a natively-filmed 3D movie to know what it really feels like. 100% CGI features are usually the absolute best experience for 3D movies. (Megamind stuck out as a cinematographic masterpiece in terms of showing off 3D tech)

This was a post-convert. It was filmed in 2D and then digitally converted to a 3D picture.
The battle at the end was really impressive in 3D. I would have gone into 2D nonetheless, but it was 3D only.
I always do 2D over 3D. Its even better when the 2D is in Digital 'HD' Projection.
Wait till #Prometheus come out in 3D IMAX!
Ok, so +Chris Nelson ? That doesn't actually seem like the point. People in this thread are patting themselves on the back for not even giving it a chance.
I saw it in 3D, despite generally avoiding 3D films, because it was the only showing available when I had time to see it. I was actually pretty surprised. It turned out really well in 3D. Not annoying at all.
Koush, I've heard Avengers in 3D is actually very good, but I haven't seen it in 2D or 3D. Some friends equated it to Avatar's use of it; that is, used almost entirely to add depth and realism, not shooting things at your face. Avatar used 3D pretty much perfectly, to my mind.
I haven't given it a chance in 3d, but I have given other similarly shot movies a chance in 3d and was sorely disappointed. Avatar and Pixar/Animated movies are the only ones worth seeing in 3d thus far.
+James Barr Actually, once or twice, things kinda came at you in Avengers, not annoyingly so, but it was more of that than I usually find in a 3D movie these days. (Normally 3D movies never shoot things at your face.)
+Jake Weisz thanks I didnt know that this one was done in post I will have to try one again that is filmed in 3D
I would have but my friends wanted 3D and it's not so bad if you don't sit in the front row.
Also the fact that this was done in post is pretty disappointing. Now I don't know which version I want to see. Post usually leaves me wanting but people seem that pretty impressed with the conversion.
did the same. 3D is literally a downgrade in terms of picture clarity and resolution. it degrades the experience
I did exactly that. 3D is annoying and obtrusive to the experience. I hope the technology goes by the wayside.
Keep hoping, because chances are it's not.
If you think good 3D (think Avatar) makes the picture look worse, I think there's something wrong with your eyes. I'm 100% serious.
But but the future and get off my lawn! 3D is horrible whaaaaaaa

Directed at +James Barr :-) 
My brother and I also prefer 2D, unless it's actually filmed for 3D like Avatar was.
Converted pseudo 3D needs to die, it give people the wrong idear about Stereoscopic 3D
Yeah, I had to suffer Clash of Titans in 3D and decided not to see any other post processed 3D movie.
I cant stand 3d movies, I wear glasses and it is very uncomfortable to wear glasses over glasses
I choose 2D every time if it is available.
2D every time! The picture quality hit in terms of contrast and saturation is way too much for a gimmick like 3D.
yup, my eyes hurt enough already without having to layer those glasses on top of my own.
Ugh, I can't imagine glasses over glasses. You guys should get some custom ground 3D glasses. I'm sure they make those. Maybe.
i went to the 2d first then the 3d. no difference really. the 3d on the avengers isnt really noticable
"Filmmaker's equivalent of a Photoshop lens flare." brilliant
Yes! those glasses are uncomfortable
I skip an 3D film that was post converted & will only see 3D ones that I think warrant it. 3D in itself is not enough to get me in the seat. It needs to make sense.
Going to, yeah. It's amazing that they're trying to push a gimmick they used in the 80's for a second round. It'd be like if a shitty movie (cough AVATAR cough) brought in a 'new and improved mullet,' and every hairdresser in the world tried to push it on you.
Yep, I did the exact same.
I went to a 3D viewing but I wish I'd gone to 2D. The film was great though.
The big problem for 3D is that directors try to use it to create "whoa! surprise! it's floating right in front of you!" This is wrong. It's a childish use of the medium, and it's also assuming that you are an idiot.

Rather, 3D needs to be used to create depth. My favourite 3D moments are from Avatar, where I could see down the ship (vast and deep) and into the forest (expansive and forboding). Those moments drew me into the movie, because it made the screen fall into the wall, rather than trying to jump out at me.

Let me use this analogy. When you go to a play, it's "in 3D", yes? But the actors aren't (usually) trying to jump out of the stage to give you a lapdance. Rather, they'll create depth by making themselves move in and out in angles and directions that make you believe the set exists further out than the confines of the stage.
Saw the 2D myself and LOVED it!
Can't say I agree. I've seen 3 movies in 3d, and have nothing against seeing more.
I watched the Avengers last night as well, I work a few nights a week at my local theater and could watch 3d for free, but I still went into the 2d
+Sudhir Khanger the Oatmeal is justifying a ton of people's irrational hatred of a new technology (holy god yes I know not that new). They weren't trying to do anything justice, they were trying to get clicks from the "huuuur 3D is a fad and also lame" crowd.

And as you can see, it has worked. 
This discussion is silly - every new technology has it's failures and false starts - people used type of argument against telephones televisions, smartphones, and every other disruptive technology from the beginning of time.

I have no issue with you all preferring 2d over 3d in its current iteration, but the argument that the tech is stupid and won't go anywhere is a luddite argument.
3D done right is cool. If the movie is filmed in 3D great, i'll see it in 3D, if it's converted after the fact, it's not worth it. Either do it right or don't do it at all.
+Koushik Dutta ,down with 3D movies,what s wrong with 2D ones !on watching them all i get is cross eyes
Saw the Avengers in IMAX 3D, and it was AWESOME!! Definitely worth it, especially seeing Scarlett Johansson in that skin tight cat suit in 3D so close I could almost touch her. ;-)
Color ruins films. Black & white for life!
I've only been impressed with full CGI movies in 3D. Saw Tin-tin a few months back with my kids and I was blown away by a lot of the scenes. Needless to say 3D definitely still has a long ways to go and I wouldn't be disappointed to see it die.
I went for The Avengers in 3D yesterday, and I completely agree with this. It ruined the movie for me.
I dunno about your city, but in Sydney I'm yet to see 3D where it isn't blurry and crappy, so I prefer 2D. I'd also prefer not to sink nearly $35 for 2 hours of something that I could be (alas typically am) disappointed in. I'd rather spend that on a nice meal with friends.
+Dave Pejinsky Totally agree. I use SmoothVideo Project on my computer to get rid of the "Film effect" in 2d videos. I just can't stand the stuttering.
I agree with every part of this. Except the buying expensive concessions thing. You have to sneak that sh*t in, yo.
3D movies give me a headache too. my kid refuses to wear the glasses because they mess with his eyes.
Plus, wearing those 3D glasses OVER my prescription glasses -- haven't figured out how to make that work comfortably at all.
2D movies = far less hassle & frustration
Wow! Who knew there were so many luddites on the internet?
I went to 2d as well 3d gives me headaches
Don't even get me started on women in my plays +Nathan Rogers I won't even think about buying a ticket unless the entire cast is male.
I took the kids and saw it in 2d, though I saw Avatar in 3d. My simple take on this: You can't enjoy 3d by staring at a 2d screen. It's silly. Like saying you want to take in the breadth and depth of the great outdoors, by looking at it through a window.

Regarding +Dave Pejinsky 's comment, I would respectfully challenge that it is not an FPS issue but one of how the frames are interpolated, like how some tvs become pixelated when there is a lot of action or flashbulbs going off in movies.

FPS higher than the 29.9 that we are used to tends to look strangely surreal to me. Perhaps my caveman brain is just used to the sluggish technology. Now get off my lawn you kids. :-)
A neighbor posted that he was going to see it in 2-D because "that's how Nick Fury would see it".

I intentionally saw it in 2-D. 3-D generally doesn't add to the experience, I've found. Plus it gives my wife a headache.
Yea well Iron Man told me to see it in 3D (he really did). Maybe your friend shouldn't be so presumptuous to think he would know how Nick Fury would view it.
I really don't know what the hype is with 3D. It's nothing special and it sure as hell doesn't justify the ticket price. Also, it is just a mere illusion that brings nothing to the table, except for the occasional headache afterwards. As soon as it is possible to have a Holodeck kind of movie experience I'll happily throw my cash at Hollywood. Until then 3D is just a scam in my mind and does absolutely nothing. Oh, and that tech is not really THAT new, it's been around since ~1915.
All I'm saying is: If you CAN watch 3D, then 'Cool for you'. Some of us can't enjoy it due to headaches, or eye-problems or whatever reason. Should they get rid of 3D? "No, probably not". But i might argue that maybe they might ensure that there's a reasonable 2D viewing schedule available as well.
Otherwise, we 2D's simply wait till the availability on Netflix/DVD/BluRay. (but we don't want to hear complaints about poor opening weekend sales @ theaters if it's only being shown in 3D ;-) )
Walt B.
I was forced into the 3D showing because the 2D was all sold out when I arrived.
The movie was good regardless of the format,the 3D didn't bother me except that I'd have liked the image to be brighter. And I have to say,while I don't usually care for Scarlett Johansen,the 3D made her ass look great when she was questioning Loki.
I saw the 3D but hardly noticed it so you missed nothing with 2D....
I am not going to see it in 3D.
I will avoid 3d movies whenever possible. It's just a waste of money. I'd really prefer 4k to have been the next big thing instead of 3d.
I also prefer 2D over 3D. Better color and clarity.
I avoided the 3D as well. Its a technology that all the tech companies are pushing hard, but its also a technology that no one asked for. Give me a nice big, vibrant 2D display any day over a non-vibrant, washed out, flickery 3D display. Plus, I already wear glasses, I certainly dont want to have to wear 2 pairs at one time.
I'm going to go see it in 2D as it was filmed in 2D and post converted to 3D. If a film is filmed in 3D, I'll usually see it in 3D. Not a fan of 3D however.
Rob Go
No way in hell am I seeing a 3D flick. It's a gimmick who's 15 minutes were up in the 50's.
it heavily depends on the cinema. the small cinema I know use a more expensive technology with expensive glasses that give a more vibrant color. but it wasn't showing on that cinema anymore so I had to go to the bigger more well known one, and thet use a cheaper technique with greyish, cheap 0.1$ per glasses technique, it was horrible, I had doublevision and it ended with a headache.

if at a good cinema though, with proper equipment, it's eyecandy, pretty much like 1080p is compared to 720p.
+Joseph McDade Don't think 4k is out, The Hobbit is 4k, 48fps, and 3d. These are all things I'm looking forward to becoming standard... Sure 3d tech may not be great now, but the more adoption it gets the more R&D it'll get. Even with the mild adoption we've got now there are some pretty cool 3d screens in the works.
It was post-production 3D anyway. A lot of headache for not much awesome.
3D just simply isn't special anymore
I am an early adopter of pretty much any new technology. I wouldn't say I have an "irrational hatred of any new technologies". I have a rational hatred of half baked technologies that don't provide the fidelity of existing solutions.
Saw Thor last year in 3D, very underwhelmed. Going to see Avengers tomorrow, 2D.
I also went to see The Avengers and went to the 2D showing. In my personal opinion, 2D is better than 3D.

What happens if someone is already wearing glasses? I would think it would be uncomfortable wearing 2 sets of glasses......
I'd be more keen on a solution that doesn't require me to wear glasses (I don't wear any as is). And one that can provide color clarity equal to that of traditional cinema.
I think that 3D movies are too complex and too expensive... 2D movies are simple to watch and you don't need to pop the bubbles or hide. Anyway I really don't like to wear the 3D glasses...
2D here! Great movie :-) dont Like 3D...
I wanted to see the 2D version but the session time for it was when I couldn't go. So ended up watching the 3D version. 3D is defo overrated. Probably the only thing I could see worth the 3D was with Hawkeye's arrows. I wear glasses on a daily basis. So to have to wear 3D glasses over my pair of glasses irritates me as I'm unable to move my head, otherwise the glasses would fall.
3D is not worth the extra cost. I went to three 3D movies; never again.
Watched 3D version, didn't think that it added anything particularly. Save the money see 2D
Anton R
3D is only good in Computer animated cartoons like Pixar!
I didn't like 3D until I bought a 3D TV. I definitely prefer movies AND games in 3D
3D rocks! Why do 2D and live then when we have amzing technoligy to do 3D? Its ketching up and soon 2D wont exist!
hi it is john cena
I saw it in IMAX 3D here in NYC TWICE. I think that when 3D is done well like in the case of THE AVENGERS it's worth it. The last 30min of that movie in 3D was quite the ride.

In fact seeing the trailer for PROMETHEUS in IMAX 3D has pretty much gotten a guaranteed ticket sale out of me since Ridley Scott actually shot that movie with 3D in mind. The trailer looks FANTASTIC. Cant wait.
ahhh chicken nipps that was a awesome movie 2D +1 if you agree :D
I choose 2D over 3D every time.
I chose 2D for the Avengers but I will choose 3D for the Amazing Spider-Man
I went to the 3D last night. 2D would have been fine.
3d is bullshit unless made with super cameras. pisses me off and hurts my eyes and pocket!
Nerds can be nerds! but lets leave 3D out of this.
U all suck why 3D when u can have 2D
i hate 3D movies sooooo much id rather have 2D movies screw 3D
What if you have a damaged left eye and after my head injury I've trained my brain to ignore it so my good right eye sees things clearly. Not easy to do but with the shock and minor damage losing contact with my old memory matrix, it bacame easier to learn again how not to use it. So I'll always save the ticket cost and go to 2D movies. I can simulate seeing 3D by using objects I know their size and use that scaled refremce to guess the size. But it takes time and math in size scaling computation. Good thing I was good at math and Architectural Drafting.
If the movie is good, then 3d is a non-issue. It could be the future of cinema, but only if they stop charging more money for the service.
I have seen several movies in 3D. Not once have I seen them a second time in 2D and thought: "this is better in 3D".
I don't bother with 3D anymore.
Saw the IMAX 3D showing. Chose that one because it was the earliest showing and I had to work, that evening. So, my choices were somewhat limited.

That said, there was a projection problem at the first showing, so, I had to come back the next day to see it. However, because of that projection problem, I was able to see the 3D IMAX version for free.
They Need To Die Becuz If I See Minch Conner Ima Sue XD
The only movie that I've seen that was worth seeing in 3D is Avatar. It just simply isn't worth it usually. I can enjoy a movie just as much, if not more, without 3D.
Oh, avatar was great in 3D. otherwise, its a waste.
The only reason 3d sells better is because you can't go to a 2d movie. All of us sane people want to see our movies in 2d but we are forced it batch it in 3d because 3d showings are more frequent and the 2d ones get sold out.
Gotta agree with the 'Meal on this one, except for the fact that it didn't take 3 movies for me to say "fuck this." It was only one, and I'll never make the mistake again. The only sensations I got from 3-D was headaches, irritation, and a sense of what it must be like to live with cataracts.
I like 3D but the only reason it exists is so the movie people can charge us more
The only reason movies exist is to charge us. If it were all about the "art" they'd be free. The 3D didn't distract from anything and most of the 3D movies I've seen have been amazing. I have poor vision and wear glasses and it all worked fine for me and didn't give me a headache so I think it's just great :)
i hate 3-D. it gives me major headaches. i saw one when i was five, and i haven't watched another since. plus, it makes the movie seem o unreal and way less immersing than normal.
I know its a complicated solution but I would say not watching the 3D version might be the answer.
The Dark Crystal was only believable if you were a muppet. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie as a kid when it came out but "realistic" and "believable" weren't even something an eleven year old would have called it.
Just sayin'
Saw it in 3d. Would have much preferred 2d. 3d is s hassle, that's not worth it.
Yes, saw it in 2D because it was not shot in 3D. Which makes the 3D a money making gimmick that detracts from the film.
I haven't seen the movie yet. Do you guys think it's better shown in 2d than 3d?
I saw it in 3D to match screenings with the group I was going with; it was okay, but clearly not shot for it. I still hold that there's merit to the technology, but unfortunately it's largely being used as a gimmick to pry an extra buck (or three) from moviegoers.
Cant do it often, plus they make you pay extra to use the glasses, then recycle it after the movie is done! They should just have one pair that you only buy once, or again if they break.
I refuse to pay for 3D. My right eye is bad enough that not only is it a waste of money, it gives me a headache almost instantly.
I saw avatar in 3d and came out of the cinema wondering why nothing popped out the screen. Turns out I have very little depth perception due to a lazy eye. Waste of £5 extra on my ticket.
2d is way better and poses less of a health issue since theaters here let moviegoers use the same glasses for every screening and i don't think they disinfect them after every screening. my 7 year old daughter got Conjunctivitis after watching a 3d movie "tangled" last year.
I deliberately pirate movies which come out in 3D and always pay for 2D movies.
I was going to go to the 2D one, however there was only one showing and it had subtitles... So ended up paying the extra to see it in 3D without subtitles. Which if im honest, might have been 2D anyway - not enough 3D to even bother
Watched it in 2d so I didn't have to wear the stupid 3d glasses
IMAX 3D is pretty sweet, 3D on a normal sized screen doesn't seem to work so well and just seems distracting. Something about the IMAX screen consuming more of your field of vision makes it work mesh better. For myself anyway. To bad IMAX is almost $17 where I'm live.
Add a comment...