>This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.

Couldn't agree more.

It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

And to categorize 3D movies as simply a fad totally disregards works for which 3D was an integral part of the creative vision, e.g. Avatar, Gravity, Love.

There's simply no good reason to discourage anyone from contributing anything creative to the culture, even if you question their motives.

> It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion. It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace the mona lisa with a more modern version.

We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and diluting its history.

I don't know that making a new season of a tv show is anything like building on top of the Great Pyramids of Giza. It's like building another pyramid.

I certainly don't think that the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas diminishes the legacy of the Great Pyramids in any way. In fact, I think it's really interesting that they were able to use an ancient form to achieve something architecturally unique from a modern standpoint. It allowed them to create an uncommonly large open lobby area, which is really cool to see, and wouldn't have happened if someone had said 'no pyramids, pyramids have been done.'

A remake/reboot is certainly nothing like replacing the Mona Lisa. It's more like a Banksy type person painting their own take on the Mona Lisa on a concrete wall or something.

Do you think that no artist after da Vinci should ever reference the Mona Lisa in any way? Because derivative works were being made by prominent artists before da Vinci even considered his finished. In fact, the famous Mona Lisa arguably wasn't even the only version of the Mona Lisa that da Vinci himself contributed to.

'Meaning' is extremely personal and dependent entirely on the context within which a work is received. No work will ever hold the exact same meaning for two individuals. Furthermore, a work's meaning to a particular individual is likely to evolve continuously throughout their life.

To discourage derivative works is like saying that you don't want to have to consider that alternate meanings are even possible.

Agreed, not all sequels or reboots are bad.

Derivative work is a little different than building a sequel though. A sequel may stand alone on it's own, but it also can take away from the original intention of it's prequel because it usually further builds out the universe or plot that took place in the original.

Movie producers often reach for sequels because they are guaranteed cash grabs and prop them up with nothing more than a shallow plot and a few A-list celebrities. To many, this takes away from the intent and meaning of the original.

I like a well-done sequel. As much fun as it is to step into a movie world for the first time and find out what's going on, there's a certain sameyness to the requisite beats to establish origins, establish personalities, establish locations, just a whole lot o' establishing going on. Again, that's great and all, but it limits the amount of time for the story itself, and limits the range of stories that can be told.

Look at all the superhero origin stories that have come out lately, and summarize to yourself the story in the movie, without including any of the establishing. Even in the best ones... in fact, to some extent, especially in the best ones... the story itself is quite simple.

The sequel will have a chance to spread its wings much more. The fact that so many fail to do so is... well... an interesting discussion on its own. But the really great sequels are often movies that had to be sequels, because they told a story too big to also have 45-75 minutes of establishing in there with them.

Each of your examples destroys the original.

Making sequels in no way affects the integrity of the original.

They are wholly different circumstances.

Building on top of the gaza pyramids doesn't destroy the original, it changes it.

Sequels absolutely can affect the integrity of the original by expanding the universe of the plot in ways that it's original design never intended or the way it was originally perceived.

Yes, but it's a fictional universe, so you're free to disregard any elements of it that fall outside of your favorite entries into the canon.

If you think that some new works expand the universe in a stupid direction, there's no reason you can't pretend they don't exist and still derive the same meaning from your favorite works.

Disney does this as a matter of policy.

You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels.

Countless Shakespeare productions and remakes and reinterpretations don't diminish the original form.

> You're not obliged to pay attention to any of the sequels.

That statement does nothing but detract from the conversation. Of course I'm not obliged to pay attention to any of them. I'm not making the generalization that all sequels are bad.

No but you are saying that a bad sequel can make the original worse. I don't think so. The original is still there, untouched, and you can hone your skill at putting yourself in the context in which it was originally released.

Just for the record, Adam West was indisputably the best Batman.

I don't know if you're joking, but regardless there is a point to be had.

Batman needs some comedy, and it needs to be proud of it, and there has been very little of that in the reboots. In fact, with the exception of a few scenes in the Michael Keaton version (which is my favourite in fact), I've only really seen it in Suicide Squad, and it only had about 30 seconds which included Batman.

The Adam West version is a comedy show, and it does a pretty good job at it.

Not at all joking that Adam West is the best. He owns the character like Shatner owns Kirk.

That said, I like the campier interpretations of the TV show and Burton/Keaton but I also like the grittier Miller/Mazzuchelli Year One and Nolan/Bale interpretations, too. There's a proud tradition of both, and they complement each other (one interpretation playing straight man to the other, if you will).

It would be a thing of beauty and wonder if someone could accurately re-dub all of Batman Begins with Adam West dialog from the original series. Instant meme-success.

> If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

Recently, I've been watching Sherlock. After doing some reading, I learned that Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character ever, "with more than 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films" [1]. Talking with a work mate, he said his favorite portrayal was Jeremy Brett. I also learned that the original works are in the public domain, which is probably why it is so often used as source material.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Adaptations_in...

> If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

Yes it does, absolutely.

That's like saying an awful ending to a movie can't ruin the whole movie, people can still enjoy the beginning.

It's totally possible to ruin people's memories and nostalgia.

Tangential, but the bad thing about 50 seasons of the Simpsons isn't the product, but rather all the comedy writers and voice actors it ties up making schlock, who would otherwise be off making much more interesting and coherent works in smaller teams. The Simpsons is to TV production staff what EA is to game devs or Google is to software engineers: a place where promising talent is absorbed into a black hole.

You make it sound as though no one has a choice in their job.

Like jackbooted thugs from Fox show up on your doorstep and say "we heard you write comedy; you're coming with us."

There's no shortage of talented creative people, and contracts usually don't last forever.

3D takes up time slots that could otherwise go to 2D showings, so it's zero-sum and the mentality is logical and reasonable for 2D fans to celebrate the decline of 3D. The faster the 3D showings phase out, the faster the movie-going experience returns to its former convenience of having all showtimes be acceptable. Or not having to go to a worse theater that has a 2D showing at the only available time.

Nobody's trying to oppress you personally or trying to control your experience out of principle. (I hope.)

> 3D takes up time slots that could otherwise go to 2D showings, so it's zero-sum

3D is typically enhanced price, and serves as a way of extracting more money from the segment of the population willing to pay more to see movies in the theater. Without 3D pulling in that segment, the profit-maximizing 2D ticket price would probably be higher.

I doubt it. When 3D movies started to appear in the cinema, 2D prices did not go down. The 3D tickets were simply higher by, in Ireland, several euro, ostensibly to pay for the extra production costs.

When the 3D movies disappear, is it more reasonable to expect that cinemas will take the cut to their income, or try to raise their 2D ticket prices to make up for the lost extra revenue? I'd expect prices to go up, at least in the formerly-3D theatres that already have the upgraded, premium equipment. In fact, one of the ones nearby does sell tickets to their premium-level theatres for a few extra dollars, even for 2D shows.

Ticket prices generally increase over time. It's quite possible that 2D prices would.have increased faster without 3D, but obviously impossible to verify.

3D also usually monopolizes the best (tech) screens/sound systems.

I'd pay the 3D fee to get in the most modern 2D theatre experience possible. I also get frustrated that 2D showing times can be quite limited if I want to see it on a system better than what I have at home.

There's always an option to bring 2D glasses [1] to a 3D movie showing.

[1] Not a joke: on Amazon you can find polarized glasses that work with most theaters where both lenses are polarized to just a single camera (left 2D and right 2D). I've got a friend that experiences motion sickness at 3D showings that uses them to see movies where everyone else wants to see 3D. One of the lesser utilized but awesome tools with some of the home 3D TVs (like my LG) is to have one player with left 2D glasses and the other with right 2D glasses and play a "full screen" coop game.

My bet is that people just wouldn't be willing to pay as much for a 2D movie. If there were only 2D movies at 3D prices, people would just go to the theatre less. Which is why, whether consumers like it or not, theatres won't let 3D die: it's their profit margin, like "whales" are for casinos.

> "enhanced price"

That's a very friendly way to put it :)

Alternatively, higher prices for 3D could be offsetting the reduced revenue of the smaller viewership.

8 Theaters showing Star Wars movies, only one of those theaters is not 3D.... Sure you can see those movies in non-3D, but they sure like having a lot of 3D versions in the theaters. Nothing I like more than watching a movie wearing 2 pairs of glasses, especially if the second pair is really unfomfortable and don't fit right.

That's a hint at how many people agree that all showings should be in 2D.

It's more of a hint of how much money 3D makes the theater. As far as I can tell, most of my friends are pretty neutral on 3D. I don't like 3D, but I'll go to a 3D movie with my friends, especially if the only time we can find that works is a 3D showing.

I personally think 3D sucks because it is a gimmick that affects the cinematography of a movie. Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D. I've seen a lot of films in both 2D and 3D, and I do appreciate the gee-whiz factor of 3D for some kinds of movies, but it's really unnecessary for movies where spectacle is not the primary consideration.

Plus, 3D is really immersion breaking. When you are watching a 2D movie directors force you to look at a certain part of a shot by using a shallow depth of field. In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.

Realism isn't the goal of movies, telling a story is, and 3D gets in the way of telling that story.

> Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D.

Mind you, for movies where the majority of many shots are CGI-composited (or for works that are just plain-old digital animation in their entirety), the 3D is "free": you have a 3D master whether you want one or not, and any 2D release is a post-processed edit.

> In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.

I've always wondered whether this problem could be "solved" with eye-tracking in VR. The gear would project a ray from your pupil to the image, hit a pixel, map it back through the projection matrix to the surface of an object in the scene, and then dynamically adjust the depth-of-field so that that part of that object (and everything else at the same depth) was in focus.

> Mind you, for movies where the majority of many shots are CGI-composited (or for works that are just plain-old digital animation in their entirety), the 3D is "free": you have a 3D master whether you want one or not, and any 2D release is a post-processed edit.

It's not free because although the assets are in 3D, the final render still needs to be done, and for stereo you need to render every frame twice, once for each eye. When I was working on animated features the extra production cost for stereo was ~10% of the total production budget.

It's a common misconception that the theatre pockets the 3D surcharge, or that is pays for the glasses. It's a licensing fee for RealD.

Or that theatres or studios prefer to sell 3D for various reasons (like they can charge more, differentiate more from watching movies at home, etc)

Why would they be able to charge more for something people don’t want?

Psychology. People have an inner understanding of how much things "ought" to cost. If you charge more than that, you need a differentiator or it will trigger their scam detector and they'll reject you.

3D is a good differentiator, and allows for a price raise that otherwise doesn't appear justified.

Ok. But if people prefer the 2D version, then they’d not pay more for something they like less.

Actually yes. As a commenter above me hinted at, you would if it was the only option you had. I had to see ep 7 in 3d because there was no 2d showing on release day.. But I'd rather pay a bit more and watch it in 3d than to not watch it at all

If it's the only option you have they could just raise the price without implementing 3D. After all, ticket prices have risen over time for the same formats. Of course, the reality is that you always at the bare minimum have the option to just not go to the cinema.

No not quite. The thing is that they have a normal mix of 2D and 3D showings but not on the release day. So the issue is of wanting to see it the first day. So they have the normal division of prices between the two of them, but you are essentially forced to go for the more expensive one if you want to see it when it is released.

But you still have a choice, which is all I was saying.

Well true, you have a choice in everything. But given the constraint that I want to see the movie on release, my choices are more limited.

Because in a lot of markets they control the supply. 3D provides leverage to increase revenue across the board, and if 3D is the only option to see Star Wars, people will choose to pay more and see it in 3D when faced with the option of not seeing it at all.

Because the people who do do are willing to pay more.

That’s my point. People do like 3D movies. Not everyone, but enough to dedicate screens to it.

> Sure you can see those movies in non-3D, but they sure like having a lot of 3D versions in the theaters.

That's because large numbers of people like to watch 3D versions in preference to 2D, especially for movies like those in the Star Wars series (less so for, say, romcoms, which is why you don't see them in 3D at all.)

I suppose you could always bring your own polarized glasses with both eyes polarized at the same angle.

Actually yes you can https://www.2d-glasses.com/

> Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it

Depending on where you live, not really.

Sure. It's also true that some people live hours from a decent cinema. I don't really see the relevance.

Well, the total number of movie showings in an area are somewhat limited, and don't increase that fast. By splitting the types of experience shown between 2D and 3D, they are reducing the number of showing for people that prefer a certain type of experience compared to if they were all that experience. For people that prefer 2D, this is a reduction in the total showing they could expect, so a loss. Of course it's a gain for those that prefer 3D, and a huge one, since it was effectively nonexistent previously.

What we're really seeing is that people don't like to lose something they had previously, regardless of how small. People who prefer 2D really are having fewer showings available, but the trade-off is choice, and allowing other people to actually experience their preference, which is a good thing.

On (most?) non English speaking countries, on top of the choice between 2D and 3D, you have to choose between subtitled and dubbed.

Very often the only 2D option is the dubbed version—because kids, I guess—if any, because the other rooms are already split between subtitled and dubbed.

In my view, the problem is actually that theaters often do not have equivalent quality for 3D and non-3D. The biggest, best screen may show 3D IMAX all day long, because that's what is most profitable. Seeing movies in 2D on the highest quality screen/projection/sound has been fairly difficult in the last year or more.

I really wanted to see Rogue One in IMAX, but there were no 2D IMAX showings in my area.

Oh man, this drives me nuts to no end. I'd gladly pay the extra ticket price for an IMAX showing if I didn't have to get a headache 15 minutes in.

I would actually recommend against it. I saw it in 2D IMAX, and there was enough shaky-cam that the giant screen just felt disorienting and a bit nauseating. I don't think Rogue One is well-suited to that kind of environment.

Out of curiosity, did you end up watching 3D IMAX? There is a single IMAX cinema in my city (so I cannot do a comparison), and Rogue One was awful in it. Blurry, dark, slightly out of focus. I wonder whether this is a flaw in all 3D IMAX showings, or maybe this particular cinema had some technical problem?

My experience was that 3D IMAX is way worse than regular 3D (which I'd also rather not watch).

The only passable 3D experience I've ever had was in a 3D Laser IMAX. The brightness was leaps and bounds better than any other 3D screen I've seen, and it wasn't constantly distracting like most are. The laser imax experience blew away any other 3D movie on a regular screen I've ever seen and it wasn't remotely close.

That said I'd still prefer 2D.

At my local theater, the IMAX movies I've seen have all been incredibly bright and sharp, both 3D and 2D. I don't think it's something inherent to the format.

No problem. I haven't been to a 3D movie anywhere, ever. I used to go to lots of them. Now I hardly set foot in a theatre. So I voted with my feet - until the 3D fad passes, I'm good with Netflix thanks.

How is the 3D fad keeping you from seeing 2D movies at the theater?

Popular movies come out in 3D. All the friends want to see that one. I say "no thanks" and stay home.

I would think the greatest value in that scenario would be in sharing in a new experience with friends.

But I don't know your friends.

Why do something you hate or gives you headaches just to enjoy the company of your friends? Why not do something none of you actively hate?

Because sometimes it's worth the camaraderie to "take one for the team". Sometimes if you're the only one in a large group that actually dislikes something, you keep your trap shut.

It depends on the personalities of everyone involved, the strengths of their feelings on the matter, etc. There's a lot of variability involved.

I bet 3D movies don't give you headaches?

I'll do something I fear will be boring or go to restaurant I don't love for my friends. But I won't take a 3D headache or eat at a restaurant that has nothing but stuff I'm allergic to, because headaches suck. (Turns out both my clauses converge on that "because".) At the risk of channeling $STEREOTYPICAL_MOM, are people who'd ask that of you really your friends?

Lack of sleep gives me headaches. Sometimes (but not always), 3D movies do too. They're always more fatiguing than 2D movies, at the very least.

> At the risk of channeling $STEREOTYPICAL_MOM, are people who'd ask that of you really your friends?

They don't know, because I don't tell them. Otherwise, they'd bend over backwards to accommodate me, which would make me more uncomfortable than the physical pain does.

I give you permission to tell your friends that you don't want to risk a headache to spend time with them.

You'd choose differently than I would, apparently. Having tried both approaches to dealing with the situation (with other groups of people), I've decided that I prefer this one. You can take your condescension and shove it up your ass; it serves no useful purpose here.

I just checked local Cinemark and most movies showing (including the Star Wars one) are available in non-3D. So it may be not the function of availability :)

3D can reduce the availability of 2D showings by 50%, so if there are half as many times when 2D is showing, then there will be customers that choose not to see the film because showtimes don't fit their schedule.

Source: Myself, a dad that only sees movies a couple times a month during a very limited time period when the babysitter is available

So you used your feet to vote against something despite never giving it a try? You just assume you'll hate 3D? What if you're wrong and missing an amazing experience just because you're afraid to try new things? Worst case scenario is you were right to begin with and you wasted 2 hours and maybe an extra $3.

It's a gimmick. If you don't care about plot and story and acting ability have at it, but to call it a "movie" is a stretch in any classic sense of the word. More like a theme park ride. This is why people are dismissive of it.

It's no more of a gimmick than "talkies", or color films. It's just newer in wide use, and so there are more people who are still more used to film without it.

> Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it

This is not true. Every 3d movie takes up IMAX screens that could be used to show 2dd versions of the movie. The 3d IMAX version has less visual fidelity than the 2d version and actively makes people feel sick.

Because movie theaters believe they can charge more for 3d often 3d movies take up every single IMAX screen and do not allow people to enjoy the best possible experience.

3d is a stupid gimmick and ruins movies.

> Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. Unless it's in IMAX, then IMAX without 3D is rarely offered.

Some 3D theaters are great, the IMAX ones tend to be the best because the projection equipment is top-notch, but others are really awful. The picture's dim.

Some 3D movies are great, like Avatar that actually shot things using 3D cameras. In other movies, like Captain America, they add the 3D in post and it looks like garbage. I appreciate a 3D movie done well, but too many are half-assed.

The real problem for me is if I can't see it in IMAX I'd rather see a film in not-3D but because the theaters have a hefty 3D surcharge, they're not interested in running the 2D version. I'm paying a ridiculous tax for something I don't even want, and I have no options other than going way out of my way to avoid it.

Maybe you like everything in 3D. That's fine. There are a lot of people that don't care for it and yet are forced into paying for it for lack of options.

I love 3d movies, I have a passive 3dtv, and have even taken up 3d photography. 3d rocks!

The worst thing about 3d is that most 3d movies aren't even shot in 3d. It's all "fake" and done in post. So it adds even less in that case than a movie that's actually shot with 3d in mind.

I do find it said that it is near impossible to find non-3D IMAX showings. My wife isn't a fan of the 3D. So I'm often forced to go to the normal showing and skip the IMAX showing.

It'd be great if they had both!

I'm not sure it's that easy. There have been concerns that 3D projectors as they are being used negatively impact 2D screenings: http://archive.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2011/05/22/misu...

Well, for every one of you, there's one of me, and I hate it. Sure it's also offered in standard, but sometimes (too often) the only showing I can make is 3D.

So yeah, go away you stupid gimmick.

There's a real cost to producing a 3D movie, though.