Poll: Do you go to the theater for 3D re-releases?

[Yopaz]

No, because I don't really go to the theatre to see movies regardless. I prefer to wait for the DVD release and watch them at home. I do like seeing movies in 3D every now and then though, but I wont go to the theatre to see it if I'm not going with someone.

 

[loc978]

Not gonna say 3D sucks, as it obviously works fine for some people... but for me, my eyes are too fucked up for it to work (burns, scratches, pin-holes, curled at the edges, you name it... I'm not correctable to 20/20, and laser surgeons are scared of me). Just looks all blurry with extra edges and stuff... definitely not worth regular admission, much less extra money.

 

[Kaymish]

well personally i cannot watch a 3D film without getting a splitting headache so i avoid 3D like the plague, which for me it is
unfortunately 2D releases are getting fewer and further between so soon i am going to be forced into getting some 2D glasses if the 3D fad continues much longer

 

[Yuno Gasai]

I'm actually not overly fond of 3D movies in general; I feel as though most films in 3D don't really take full advantage of 3D technology. You get a few gimmicky moments (where things jump out at you), but other than that, it's just like any other film.

That being said, I did end up watching The Lion King in 3D when it was remastered and re-released.. but it was a film I knew I loved, and I'm pretty sure I just wanted an excuse to watch it again. (I was also curious to see what they'd do with the 3D aspect.. it wasn't much.)

 

[Gilhelmi]

I wanted to vote yes for two answers.

Movies I love, AND movies I have not seen.

Also, I will not go to a 3D movie that was poorly done. You can usually tell based on reviews.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I'm actually not overly fond of 3D movies in general; I feel as though most films in 3D don't really take full advantage of 3D technology. You get a few gimmicky moments (where things jump out at you), but other than that, it's just like any other film.

That being said, I did end up watching The Lion King in 3D when it was remastered and re-released.. but it was a film I knew I loved, and I'm pretty sure I just wanted an excuse to watch it again. (I was also curious to see what they'd do with the 3D aspect.. it wasn't much.)

Everyone should watch that one again. It is an American Classic.

I remember crying during parts of it.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Pfft, noo. I'm not gone to give money towards some companies lazy attempt to make cash off an old ip by putting it in 3D.

 

[Scarim Coral]

No, I will most like to see in its original form on TV or DVD nor do I believe the 3D element will bring a new experience to something I have already watched and also the pound or two extra for the 3D effect is not worth the cost to me.

 

[purplecactus]

Nope. Not only are they extortionately expensive around where I am, but you need special glasses to actually watch it in 3D. I wear glasses. Glasses on top of glasses aren't terribly comfortable (and contacts aren't an option for me, sadly). To be honest, I don't much see the point either. Sure, it's a nice addition, but not really needed, is it?

 

[Diddy_Mao]

No for another reason.

It's not that 3D sucks it's that post production 3D conversions suck.

I've only seen 2 re-release 3D conversions and that was when my local theatre had a marathon of all 3 Toy Story films.

 

[antidonkey]

3D is neat and all but I'm not going to see a movie again just because it happens to be in 3D now. If it's something I've not seen before, then sure, 3D is a fun way to see it. If I ever get a 3D system at home, I'd consider buying a re-release then but only if I didn't already have it. 3D doesn't add enough to justify the costs of owning/seeing it again.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've been to one 3-D re-release, a dual showing of Toy Story and Toy Story 2. And it was like 6 bucks. I would probably do it more if the prices were like that.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I don't see the point of going to the theater to see a movie that I already have and watched countless times at home, just in 3D (which I can already, at home, via a video program on my computer).

There is absolutely no reason to re-watch a released movie on 3D, as it adds absolutely nothing to the experience. I would consider it if it were in 4D (3D with added physical affects to make you feel like you are in the movie i.e. Shrek 4D).

Other than that, I just watch the film at home, get the projector going, and invite some friends over. Much more satisfying and memorable.

 

[GodzillaGuy92]

Oh, look, that new movie I'm interested in is coming out soon. Let me weigh my options: I could either pay $10 to, you know, see it, or pay $15 to be distracted for the first ten minutes of it after which I forget about the 3D altogether outside of maybe an action scene or two which I then can't concentrate on because the 3D is damaging my immersion again.

Wait, what's that? The movie's twenty years old, and going to see it in 3D not only sends the message to the movie industry that I want them to keep emphasizing their precious visual toys over any originality or artistic substance, but is in itself stupidly impractical when I could get an improved experience by outright buying it for about the same price or watching it for free on Netflix?

No. Just no. Given that no new release has ever been improved by 3D, the same goes triple for old ones.

 

[Plinglebob]

The only time I've done it was when The Lion King was re-released. I love the film, love the soundtrack, love watching hand-drawn animation on the big screen and because I went at 10am on a Wednesday the place was deserted. The only downside was it was in 3D.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I only go to see movies I love on the big screen thats why I am sad they cancelled the 3d realeses of starwars I will never be able to see empire on the big screen

Never say never. The Star Wars saga is one of those series that will probably continue to get limited theatrical runs periodically until the end of time, like Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. I'm sure I'll get a chance to see all six movies on the big screen again, it's just a question of when. Especially now that Disney, who absolutely /loves/ to do periodic re-releases of their heavy hitters, owns it.

I don't see the point in 3D films. I'm not paying almost £5 more plus the cost of the glasses (although I kept one pair to re-use) just to have things slightly different. Films also did the stupid 'oh-look-it's-coming-out-of-the-screen-into-your-face-whooooo' thing that just goes to show it is a gimmick rather than adding anything to the movie other than an expensive production budget. I've seen two films in 3D because there was no option to do otherwise and few others because friends wanted to watch it in 3D rather than vanilla. I wasn't blown away by things seeming to be slightly closer to my face, I remain to be whelmed.

As for 3D remakes, they are even less appealing. If I want to watch Jurassic Park I'll scrape off the cocoon of dust from my VHS copy and try and make it work on my laptop or something. I dislike it when some films get limited unseen directors exclusive HD remastered deluxe premiere directors choice extended directors editions, throwing 3D on the pile changes nothing about that especially if it is more than a decade old and clearly just pandering to nostalgia. Although 3D Firefly will probably convert me. Especially if it comes with season 2.

Dang, they charge 5 pounds extra for the ticket /and/ charge extra for the glasses? Here it's $3 (which is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 pounds, depending on what the exchange rate is at the moment), and the glasses are free, although you're supposed to drop them off to be recycled after you use them. Just about everyone has a pair they took home, though. To the point that they're kind of the standard pair of glasses that hipsters get just to pop the lenses out of.