Is it me, or is the new 3D kind of underwhelming?

I grew up watching 3D movies like House of Wax, Gorilla At Large, and several 3 Stooges shorts. Captain EO (which is back at Disneyland) with Michael Jackson was equally effective.
I wouldn’t say Avatar was underwhelming, or overwhelming. It was just whelming. I was whelmed.

I actually like it better. It is truly 3D. It’s like you are inside the movie. Old 3D just jumped out at you. Ho hum.

I found it disappointing too. Not just the story which I expected to be underwhelmed at. I also found I felt jaded about the 3D-ness. It seemed to me that the Muppets at Disney were more exciting years ago. Was that just because it was so new then or as you say, could they have done more with it? (And I saw it in a pretty good I-Max theatre.)

I sense a crappy theater is behind your experience. Or crappy glasses. I think after being washed so many times the lens lose some 3-d-idness.

I saw Avatar twice and I didn’t think the graphics were all that breathtaking either. The flyings scenes didn’t have that same 3D experience that I remember at the IMAX or at Disneyworld or MGM Studios. It just seemed to me like higher resolution and more accurately modeled 3D renderings, which is something I think most people are used to, especially people who’ve played a lot of video games.

It was still at least fun. The second time I saw it the novelty of the 3D completely wore off and no longer protected me from realizing how boring the plot was and how much the acting sucked.

The acting really sucked.

The entire point of the 3D in the film was to be subtle. For you, that was underwhelming; but only because you went in with certain expectations.

I’ve seen Avatar both in 3D and 2D. The use of 3D is very subtle, but when you watch it without, you start to understand why the 3D version was a better experience.

I’m sorry to hear that Avatar didn’t have the novelty gimmicks you were expecting. ;)

@noyesa Find me a video game (or another film for that matter) where human body language is used as well as in Avatar. The real advances were in the ability to make a model behave like a believable human.

I thik used in the right movie it can be really great. Like kids movies where they are still amazed by them. I just hope it isn’t a new trend where every other movie isn’t in 3D. Overkill. I hope Tron is red in 3D, though.

I was invited to go watch that movie in 3D, in a nice theater. A lot of us thought the movie was terrible (myself included) but the 3D part was legit.

There are three things immensely popular in the world right now that I think are fads. 3d Movies, Autotuned voice effects, and social networking.

If you did not see IMAX 3D then you did not get the full experience.

Personally, I prefer 2D movies in the first place. 3D movies scare the crap outta me, which I know is irrational, but it scares me to have things, fake or not, flying out at my face.

@tinyfaery, I wish we had an IMAX that showed more than natural history museum movies :-(

I would much rather watch a movie with a worthwhile plot.

@mangeons I did not feel Avatar jumped out at me. I don’t like that much either. It’s fine for a 10 minute movie at Disney, but otherwise not so much.

Three dimensional entertainment takes away a lot of the viewer’s imagination if you ask me.

I’m not against it and enjoy pretty graphics and special effects a whole lot, but I’ll never let go from 2D gaming and hand drawn animation, thanks.

Protip-Stop motion animation, also own.

Today, people think that 3D movies are something new. this is not true. i remember seeing the first 3D movies in the 1950s. i believe War of The Worlds was the very first. i could be wrong and i am sure someone will correct me. john

@john65pennington Yeah. That, and Friday the Thirteenth part something or other. :)

@richardhenry I didn’t mean in the sense that it looked like a video game, but that I’m completely desensitized to newer and better graphics. The immersiveness was supposed to be what was so interesting about Avatar, and I didn’t find it all that immersive is all.

@kevbo: Did you go to IMAX.com to look for a theater near you? More and more are opening up all the time. Plus, the museums in our area also show the theatrical features on their IMAX screens as well as the natural history stuff.

I agree with those that said that the point of the ‘new’ 3-D is realism and a sense of immersion, rather than getting you to jump out of your seat… and I personally prefer it to having effects for effects’ sake.

And yes… the storyline was Disney’s Pocohantas melded with Ferngully: The Last Rainforest but it was a beautiful visual experience in IMAX 3-D… I saw it twice.

I liked the 3D adverts they showed rather than Avatar!!
I mean commercial adverts for peanuts and Sky TV.
Was scratching my head after the film wondering what to make of it.

@hearkat, no luck. Actually, the one in town doesn’t even show up on the map, but maybe it’s a Dynamax, which I guess is different.

@kevbo: Bummer. I have to drive about 40 minutes to my nearest IMAX, but I find it’s worth it for those major releases. I loved Star Trek on the huge digital screen even without any 3-D!