The Lion King: Diamond Edition

[singerguy04]

Well aside from many of those points completely being your personal opinion, I do agree with many of them.

I gave examples and evidence for why my opinions are valid.

No, it was a lot of opinion. Really no specific evidence at all...

1.It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience.

That is your opinion, if the general people didn't think so they wouldn't continue to go see them. Especially when the 2D version is offered as well.

2.It can cause nausea and headaches if used too frequently.

This can be true for people with motion sickness, but they probably wouldn't go see it if they knew it'd make them sick. Also, this isn't evidence... you don't have scientific proof, and I know I haven't met anyone who actually complained about this.

3.It is popularised by Hollywood largely to sell more expensive projection equipment.

I agree, that Hollywood is probably pushing this to make more money. We don't really know this to be a complete fact though, so this boils down to a opinionated speculation.

4.It is popularised by cinema chains to sell more expensive tickets.

Once again, I agree but to continue playing devil's advocate the price is also raised to pay for the extra technology used and the glasses.

5.The image is quite darker than standard 2-D footage.

As if this is tremendously noticeable. It's more likely less of a difference than the new colors on BatB, which to many are completely un-noticeable until you look at them frame by frame and over analyze it.

6.The objects flying out from the screen don’t add anything to the plot or entertainment value.

This, to me, is a gross over-generalization of all 3D films, and comes of as yet another personal opinion.

7.The objects flying out from the screen are annoying, childish distractions.

This is completely your personal opinion.

8.The objects flying out from the screen look gimmicky.

This is also completely your personal opinion

9.It doesn’t work for serious adult films that aren’t action-centric.

Although, I see where you're coming from. After more consideration, I disagree completely. Good 3D can really add to the depth of field in film, and if a serious adult film were made with extremely well-done 3D that featured sweeping landscapes and beautiful backgrounds/set designs. I could imagine it being as impact-full as a broadway show is on stage.

10. It limits the genres a director and/or writer can use.

This is just an opinion as well, directors could use it however way they want.

11. It limits the type of scenes a director and/or writer can use.

Says who? The movie police? Didn't know there were laws to film.

12. It can’t be used for films unless the film is action-packed or animated.

9-12 have all basically been the same thing over and over...

13. Only easily-amused imbeciles would want to try and grab a character or object that appears to fly out of the screen.

yeah, still personal opinion... and I feel bad for the little kid sitting near you reaching out for whatever reason next time to see a 3D film knowing you'll be judging them this way.

14. It’s a waste of a dimension; our imaginations can add the other dimension in there. In Star Wars, do you ever think to yourself: ‘That spaceship looks too flat and 2-D.’ Of course not. Our minds use the principle of perspective, and usually if the film is good enough you won’t care if you can pretend to grab objects from the film or not.

I don't agree or disagree with this since I don't completely understand this reason... I mean, how is it a waste of a dimension. Your mind is still creating the 3D space because the film is still not ACTUALLY popping out at you. Your mind with the help of the 3D technology is creating the 3D. On top of that, once again, people going to see these films for the sole purpose of trying to touch the 3D objects is a presumption, not evidence or fact.

15. In tests for 3-D televisions, viewers were found to have sore eyes afterwards.

Lets see a link to this study. Then this can be considered substantial proof. Otherwise, its the same as saying that Walt Disney was a Nazi.

16. 3-D televisions cost £2400 each, and only 2 pairs of 3D glasses come ‘free’ with it.

Here is a link for a 73" Mitsubishi 3D HDTV from walmart.com for $1,299.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mitsubishi-Mi ... 0/16775716

This is a link for a 40" (couldn't find anything larger on amazon.com/uk) for £781.49.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LE40C75 ... 426&sr=8-1

It doesn't seem that either come with glasses, but I'll get to that later...

17. For 3-D televisions, if you need more than 2 pairs of 3D glasses you have to buy them separately...

Not all 3D TV's come with them, which kind of supports your point because I feel like you should at least get 2-4 with every TV. But then you say...

18. ...For £100 each.

which is not always true, in fact I found that depending on what brand you get they can be a lot cheaper.

Such as these which match the amazon.com/uk TV.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-SSG-310 ... 905&sr=1-1

On the other hand, this was not the case with the walmart.com TV I found. They were priced around $100 each.
http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng ... raint=3944

The point of this being to show that prices vary, and that your point isn't fact, but yet a generalization.

19. Test audiences felt ill after watching 3-D televisions for only 2 minutes.

This was much different than #15 in what way...? Also, what test audiences? Obviously that TV didn't actually make it to the shelves because I think we'd hear a lot more complaints about it.

20. You might have the expensive 3-D television, but you need a lot of compatible hardware, including a 3-D Blu-Ray player.

This is true, but also true for a regular HGTV's... Cars... Homes... Kitchens... Pets... Kids...

21. There’s no point in getting 3-D televisions, because only a few American channels are running 3-D shows.

Actually, I've heard of 5 at least since CES 2010. Those being ESPN 3D, Discovery 3D, and three DIRECTV 3D channels. I would imagine that since then, many more are either planned or will be if the medium does prove to sell. That being purely speculation though.

22. 3-D can’t work for people blind in one eye.

HA, this is laughable. Basically, it shouldn't exist because it doesn't work for everyone? Should skateboards not exists because a disabled person can't enjoy them. It's not as if they can't view the film at all. It's like saying we shouldn't have film with sound because deaf people can't hear them.

23. 3-D is bad for eyes, as it makes them work in an unnatural way.

I can imagine they are not too good for your eyes, but if they were too bad for your eyes wouldn't the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission have some beef with them? I think once again, you are speculating and not really stating fact.

24. Avatar’s 3-D was good only because it was James Cameron’s original vision; most directors and writers are forced by executives and producers to use 3-D in their films, even if they don’t want to. This often happens. There have been accounts of executives not releasing films because the director didn’t want to use 3-D.

where are the accounts? What are you referencing? What are your sources? This is not evidence. These are online rumors.

25. The reason for the planned re-releases of Star Wars and Titanic in 3-D won’t add anything to the popular movies. The only thing they’re adding to are the directors’ wallets, that is if audiences are dumb enough to go and watch the 3-D re-releases.

Oh, you know James Cameron and George Lucas personally? I didn't know that! If that's so then you obviously know what their intentions are and would have no reason at all to assume anything. Well then, I guess I don't have an argument.

27. Hollywood should use MaxiVision48 instead, which creates an experience one thousand times better than 3-D. It uses 48 frames per second rather than the standard 24 frames per second, and looks so much better. This is a rarely-used style, which can be used for any type of film, and makes 3-D look even shittier.

Finally! This is a very valid point. Not being sarcastic at all. I think everyone should look this up and I wholeheartedly agree, that Hollywood should be pushing in this direction.

28. Wearing 3-D glasses looks stupid (and wearing them on top of prescription glasses looks even worse).

The point was never to be fashionable. In fact, aren't you supposed to be looking at the screen, not each other?

29. 3-D glasses have become fashionable. When people wear 3-D glasses outside the cinema and in public, they probably think that this look is proclaiming that, yes, they just went to see a 3-D movie and are happy to unleash their inner geek. Instead, it says: “I got conned into seeing a 3-D movie, and am unleashing my inner idiot. I also get to look dumb in public...and it says ‘Real 3-D’ on the sides of the glasses. That’s cool, right? Right?”

If the amount of assumption and your personal opinion in this piece of "evidence" were cocaine, I would have OD'd.

30. When 3-D has objects appearing to fly out of the screen, the viewer’s attention is drawn to a particular part of the screen; thus, a lot of the work of a cinematographer or animator is wasted as 3-D makes us focus upon a particular thing in every shot.

In the small sections of film where this is true, I'm almost absolutely sure that the work a cinematographer put into everything else in the screen was somewhat minimal. If not, then I agree it is a waste. But we should be clear that there is a TON of work that cinematographers do that either gets undermined/deleted/un-credited in every film that has ever been made.


I don't really mean to come off as an ass in this post. I just don't believe that anyone should call people dumb, among other things, just for liking something they don't. Especially if they are making baseless claims and pronouncing their opinions as examples and evidence towards their stupidity. Just deflate a little bit and really think about what you're saying and how that makes you look when insulting people, thats all.

And thus concludes, what i'm pretty sure is, the longest post I've ever made in my 6 years on this forum! lol

[SWillie!]

Frankenollie, the way you're presenting your opinion on 3D as fact that everyone else with any mental capacity should agree with is incredibly similar to the way another certain member on this forum presents their opinions. The way you are being so over the top is just kind of ridiculous.

3D is obviously a pretty popular thing at the moment. So, you honestly believe that those MILLIONS of people that are paying money for it are complete, stupid imbeciles who are incapable of any intelligent thought and are completely worthless to society? That's just extremely arrogant.

[ajmrowland]

frankenollie, i expected something more mature from you than to call people who like 3D unintelligent. it's a format that has untapped potential, even if it still gives headaches. many filmmakers clearly see that, otherwise the only 3d would be converted.

and nothings flown out of the screen for years. it's layers of depth. if your gonna make an argument, at least make it relevant.

and im not an advocate

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how people who are more entertained by a movie if the action appears to come out of the screen due to a cheap gimmick (rather than it being due to an immersive, intriguing and original story) are able to function as capable and productive members of society.

And by the way, 3-D films still have things flying out of the screen, thank you very much.

still way fewer than before.

and look around. with the government failing as it is, not many people are doing anything productive about it regardless of their taste in entertainment and there's no connection anyway. i agree that the industry's lost, but creative and original was rarely the hot ticket for the last 80 years.

[Sotiris]

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/h0qjca9a-pg" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Christopher_TCUIH]

I saw this at city walk yesterday
<img src="http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc4 ... 8258e1.jpg" border="0" alt=""></a>

[The_Iceflash]

2.It can cause nausea and headaches if used too frequently.

This can be true for people with motion sickness, but they probably wouldn't go see it if they knew it'd make them sick. Also, this isn't evidence... you don't have scientific proof, and I know I haven't met anyone who actually complained about this.

15. In tests for 3-D televisions, viewers were found to have sore eyes afterwards.

Lets see a link to this study. Then this can be considered substantial proof. Otherwise, its the same as saying that Walt Disney was a Nazi.

22. 3-D can’t work for people blind in one eye.

HA, this is laughable. Basically, it shouldn't exist because it doesn't work for everyone? Should skateboards not exists because a disabled person can't enjoy them. It's not as if they can't view the film at all. It's like saying we shouldn't have film with sound because deaf people can't hear them.

23. 3-D is bad for eyes, as it makes them work in an unnatural way.

I can imagine they are not too good for your eyes, but if they were too bad for your eyes wouldn't the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission have some beef with them? I think once again, you are speculating and not really stating fact.

Actually I created a thread myself here some time back proving health concerns with 3D viewing. It IS proven.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Sorry that's it taken a while for me to reply, but I've been busy...

1.It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience.

That is your opinion, if the general people didn't think so they wouldn't continue to go see them. Especially when the 2D version is offered as well.

But it doesn't offer anything to the movie-going experience! Does it really matter to you if a film looks 'immersive'? As I've said, our minds use the principle of perspective and if a film is good enough, we'll feel immersed anyway and feel like we're there with the characters. In many Pixar films, even if the films aren't in 3-D, I still feel like I'm there with the characters and feel like I know them. Sorry, but the thing that 3-D does-to make us feel like we're there-can be achieved in admittedly more difficult but on the whole far superior ways.

2.It can cause nausea and headaches if used too frequently.

This can be true for people with motion sickness, but they probably wouldn't go see it if they knew it'd make them sick. Also, this isn't evidence... you don't have scientific proof, and I know I haven't met anyone who actually complained about this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8 ... aches.html

3.It is popularised by Hollywood largely to sell more expensive projection equipment.

I agree, that Hollywood is probably pushing this to make more money. We don't really know this to be a complete fact though, so this boils down to a opinionated speculation.

Okay, maybe it is just speculation, but it is likely.

4.It is popularised by cinema chains to sell more expensive tickets.

Once again, I agree but to continue playing devil's advocate the price is also raised to pay for the extra technology used and the glasses.

But what I said is true-cinema chains usually only make large profits from the concession stands.

5.The image is quite darker than standard 2-D footage.

As if this is tremendously noticeable. It's more likely less of a difference than the new colors on BatB, which to many are completely un-noticeable until you look at them frame by frame and over analyze it.

I disagree, the latest Harry Potter movie was already very dark and parts were somewhat hard to make out in 3-D.

6.The objects flying out from the screen don’t add anything to the plot or entertainment value.

This, to me, is a gross over-generalization of all 3D films, and comes of as yet another personal opinion.

I know 3-D is more than that, but my point still stands: they don't add to the plot and for most people, they don't add much to the entertainment value. Really, they're only there because if they weren't some of the viewers would feel like they'd been cheated as it wasn't "really 3-D."

7.The objects flying out from the screen are annoying, childish distractions.

This is completely your personal opinion.

Fine, it is, but other points aren't, and besides, I never said that EVERYTHING on this list was a fact. (This also goes as a reply to your reply to my point number .

9.It doesn’t work for serious adult films that aren’t action-centric.

Although, I see where you're coming from. After more consideration, I disagree completely. Good 3D can really add to the depth of field in film, and if a serious adult film were made with extremely well-done 3D that featured sweeping landscapes and beautiful backgrounds/set designs. I could imagine it being as impact-full as a broadway show is on stage.

I disagree, only on one or two has 3-D added great depth of field, and even if it does work for sweeping landscapes and beautiful backgrounds/set designs, I don't think that's reason enough to warrant the necessity to create whole new screens, projectionist equipment, filming technology and glasses for viewers, as style is much less important than a film's substance. Hollywood shouldn't be concerned with the more stylistic areas of a film; they should be focusing on new ideas, something they're more than just a little short on.

10. It limits the genres a director and/or writer can use.

This is just an opinion as well, directors could use it however way they want.

But it does have limited uses; for example, while something Avatar is improved by 3-D, having 3-D in a film like the King's Speech would be pretty pointless.

11. It limits the type of scenes a director and/or writer can use.

Says who? The movie police? Didn't know there were laws to film.

I meant that in many 3-D movies, scenes are thrown out in exchange for scenes that make use of 3-D, so (as I've said earlier in this particular reply) tthe viewers don't feel cheated.

13. Only easily-amused imbeciles would want to try and grab a character or object that appears to fly out of the screen.

yeah, still personal opinion... and I feel bad for the little kid sitting near you reaching out for whatever reason next time to see a 3D film knowing you'll be judging them this way.

It's not my fault that the fictional little kid in that fictional scenario is an easily-amused imbecile.

14. It’s a waste of a dimension; our imaginations can add the other dimension in there. In Star Wars, do you ever think to yourself: ‘That spaceship looks too flat and 2-D.’ Of course not. Our minds use the principle of perspective, and usually if the film is good enough you won’t care if you can pretend to grab objects from the film or not.

I don't agree or disagree with this since I don't completely understand this reason... I mean, how is it a waste of a dimension. Your mind is still creating the 3D space because the film is still not ACTUALLY popping out at you. Your mind with the help of the 3D technology is creating the 3D. On top of that, once again, people going to see these films for the sole purpose of trying to touch the 3D objects is a presumption, not evidence or fact.

You're right when you say that the mind still creates 3D space even with the 3-D technology, but it doesn't add much and as it's just doing either a better or worse job than something else, it's rather pointless. Furthermore, most '2-D' films are a lot more three-dimensional than even the possibly greatest 3-D film (when it comes to the technology, visuals and usage of 3-D that is), Avatar.

15. In tests for 3-D televisions, viewers were found to have sore eyes afterwards.

Lets see a link to this study. Then this can be considered substantial proof. Otherwise, its the same as saying that Walt Disney was a Nazi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol1CUErEHhU

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/3dtv-analysis/

http://www.amazon.com/TV-Eyes-3-D-Glass ... B000W9Y294 (note that on Amazon most rated the product 1/5 stars)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 19975.html (this is about games rather than television, but the problems caused by 3-D still apply in its context).

16. 3-D televisions cost £2400 each, and only 2 pairs of 3D glasses come ‘free’ with it.

Here is a link for a 73" Mitsubishi 3D HDTV from walmart.com for $1,299.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mitsubishi-Mi ... 0/16775716

This is a link for a 40" (couldn't find anything larger on amazon.com/uk) for £781.49.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-LE40C75 ... 426&sr=8-1

It doesn't seem that either come with glasses, but I'll get to that later...

Okay, fine, I admit that prices can vary drastically (that goes for your next replies to my next two points).

19. Test audiences felt ill after watching 3-D televisions for only 2 minutes.

This was much different than #15 in what way...? Also, what test audiences? Obviously that TV didn't actually make it to the shelves because I think we'd hear a lot more complaints about it.

20. You might have the expensive 3-D television, but you need a lot of compatible hardware, including a 3-D Blu-Ray player.

This is true, but also true for a regular HGTV's... Cars... Homes... Kitchens... Pets... Kids...

But it's still a serious hinder, and as I've said, it's blatantly unnecessary and during this time of economic crisis, it would be a shame if families wasted their money on 3-D TVs.

21. There’s no point in getting 3-D televisions, because only a few American channels are running 3-D shows.

Actually, I've heard of 5 at least since CES 2010. Those being ESPN 3D, Discovery 3D, and three DIRECTV 3D channels. I would imagine that since then, many more are either planned or will be if the medium does prove to sell. That being purely speculation though.

I should have said there's no point in getting 3-D TVs yet; sorry if you misunderstood.

22. 3-D can’t work for people blind in one eye.

HA, this is laughable. Basically, it shouldn't exist because it doesn't work for everyone? Should skateboards not exists because a disabled person can't enjoy them. It's not as if they can't view the film at all. It's like saying we shouldn't have film with sound because deaf people can't hear them.

Okay, I throw my hands up and admit that I was struggling for more points around here.

23. 3-D is bad for eyes, as it makes them work in an unnatural way.

I can imagine they are not too good for your eyes, but if they were too bad for your eyes wouldn't the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission have some beef with them? I think once again, you are speculating and not really stating fact.

See the links I posted above.

25. The reason for the planned re-releases of Star Wars and Titanic in 3-D won’t add anything to the popular movies. The only thing they’re adding to are the directors’ wallets, that is if audiences are dumb enough to go and watch the 3-D re-releases.

Oh, you know James Cameron and George Lucas personally? I didn't know that! If that's so then you obviously know what their intentions are and would have no reason at all to assume anything. Well then, I guess I don't have an argument.

It's obvious that they only want to get more money. It's not like they're digitally remastering their movies or restoring them to their original format.

27. Hollywood should use MaxiVision48 instead, which creates an experience one thousand times better than 3-D. It uses 48 frames per second rather than the standard 24 frames per second, and looks so much better. This is a rarely-used style, which can be used for any type of film, and makes 3-D look even shittier.

Finally! This is a very valid point. Not being sarcastic at all. I think everyone should look this up and I wholeheartedly agree, that Hollywood should be pushing in this direction.

Oh good, you like MaxiVision48 too.

30. When 3-D has objects appearing to fly out of the screen, the viewer’s attention is drawn to a particular part of the screen; thus, a lot of the work of a cinematographer or animator is wasted as 3-D makes us focus upon a particular thing in every shot.

In the small sections of film where this is true, I'm almost absolutely sure that the work a cinematographer put into everything else in the screen was somewhat minimal. If not, then I agree it is a waste. But we should be clear that there is a TON of work that cinematographers do that either gets undermined/deleted/un-credited in every film that has ever been made.

Yes there is a ton of work that is misused or actually deleted, but if parts of the cinematography have made it into the final film, then chances are those parts are pretty good and aren't worth missing due to a distraction caused by 3-D.

I'll reply to some of the other members later, as this has taken me some time.

[singerguy04]

Thanks for responding Dr Frankenollie!!! I haven't really been a very active poster for years, but I've been discussing the topic of 3D with a few people from work and other friends for a while now so I thought I'd kinda put up a debate lol.

Thank you also for taking the time to provide all those wonderful links. I've always heard people complain of these medical issues, but have rarely come across anything that actually supports those claims. I'd also like to thank The_Iceflash, i'm going to try to search for your topic and read up as well.

I'd also like to point out that I, personally, don't care for 3D. I don't feel that it effectively provides the viewer with anything substantial towards the film. After all, story is everything. I think people forget that a large part of Avatar's success was due to it's story (albeit not all that original, but kind of a classic retelling of a story that's been told in many different ways). The film is after all, just as good in 2D due to that fact. I'm also really against making a film 3D that was not made to be 3D. The Lion King and other films should probably just be left alone because the 3D isn't natural for the film. The 3D in Tangled works IMO because certain scenes in it (like the lantern scene) were specifically made for the technology and are breathtaking when viewed.

Although I do believe that non-3D films should not be converted, if the original film maker wants it to be that way then why should we debate it? I kind of hold a seemingly unpopular belief on this forum that any and all changes made to a film are of the original makers discretion. Meaning, is James Cameron wants to make Titanic 3D, then he should be able to do it. If George Lucas wants to release all the Star Wars films in 3D, why argue? My personal opinion (and yours) is that the whole idea is silly, but I wont condemn them for releasing the films that way. After all, it's not going to hinder my enjoyment of any of these films. Whether they are doing it to complete their original vision, or just to buy a new yacht doesn't influence me as a fan of their work. Unless, that is their original works will cease to exist and I'll never be able to see Kate Winslet's Boobs in 2D again... To many straight men, or lesbian women, this would be a travesty!

I do believe that 3D is a steppingstone towards better things in cinema. MaxiVision48 being one of those things. I personally have not experienced it, but from everything I've ever heard about this new technology I cannot imagine why 3D would even compete. That in itself lies the problem however. What needs to happen is a big director, like cameron, using it for a huge project or anticipated film. Otherwise the extra cash pulled in from 3D is just too tempting.

[SWillie!]

Frankenollie, you just substantiated your entire argument when you said that you should have said that people shouldn't buy 3D TVs YET. This is the argument that I've been making this whole time. While the general consensus seems to be that 3D Home Entertainment is not there yet, it's silly to think that the technology won't improve, and that at some point, whether it's in 3 years or 20, 3D will most likely be the standard - without all the headaches, nausea, eye strain, bluriness, etc. It's inevitable. Like I've been saying, it is a step toward the future of cinema.

"Keep moving forward."

[MICKEYMOUSE]

Don't know if this has been answered.

I am planning to go to Subway this week, and I plan on getting a kids meal so I can get the $5 off. Does anyone know if I will be able to combine the $5 off coupon with the inevitable $10 off coupon once Disney releases that coupon to buy the Blu Ray?

I live in California. Has anyone is California been able to use more than 1 coupon different savings off 1 movie (DVD or Blu Ray)

[Sotiris]

The Lion King Concept Art
http://movies.yahoo.com/photos/movie-st ... rt--stills

The Lion King: From 'Experimental B-movie' to 3D Re-release (Interview with the Creators)
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/09/06 ... e-release/

[disneyboy20022]

Don't know if this has been answered.

I am planning to go to Subway this week, and I plan on getting a kids meal so I can get the $5 off. Does anyone know if I will be able to combine the $5 off coupon with the inevitable $10 off coupon once Disney releases that coupon to buy the Blu Ray?

I live in California. Has anyone is California been able to use more than 1 coupon different savings off 1 movie (DVD or Blu Ray)

I'm not sure if that would work, though I was at a Subway and they said I could buy just the bag for $1 if I didn't want the kids meal. Though that probably varies from Subway to Subway. Also there are some differ designs of the tote bags with the coupon. I got the one with scar and the hyenas. I'll probably go back to that subway to buy the rest. There are 5 bag designs I think...maybe 6.

[DarthPrime]

Don't know if this has been answered.

I am planning to go to Subway this week, and I plan on getting a kids meal so I can get the $5 off. Does anyone know if I will be able to combine the $5 off coupon with the inevitable $10 off coupon once Disney releases that coupon to buy the Blu Ray?

I live in California. Has anyone is California been able to use more than 1 coupon different savings off 1 movie (DVD or Blu Ray)

YMMV... it depends on the store, since both are Manufacturer's coupons.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Frankenollie, you just substantiated your entire argument when you said that you should have said that people shouldn't buy 3D TVs YET. This is the argument that I've been making this whole time. While the general consensus seems to be that 3D Home Entertainment is not there yet, it's silly to think that the technology won't improve, and that at some point, whether it's in 3 years or 20, 3D will most likely be the standard - without all the headaches, nausea, eye strain, bluriness, etc. It's inevitable. Like I've been saying, it is a step toward the future of cinema.

"Keep moving forward."

What's the next step to the future then, Smell-O-Vision?

The quote you should have put (to fit your opinion that is) should be "Keep moving backward." 3-D is as gimmicky as it was decades ago. The technology may improve, but no matter what you say, it's unnecessary and I personally will never buy a 3-D TV. I don't see the appeal, I don't see how it's anymore entertaining, and as far as I can tell, it's only been slightly immersive in a handful of movies, and movies can be a lot more immersive WITHOUT 3-D, if they just use original stories and developed, well-rounded characters.

[CampbellzSoup]

Can we talk about the film again who honestly cares what he thinks about 3D? I can't wait to see it again and share the experience with others!

[disneyboy20022]

My fiance was only 4 when The Lion King came to theaters

[SWillie!]

Frankenollie, you just substantiated your entire argument when you said that you should have said that people shouldn't buy 3D TVs YET. This is the argument that I've been making this whole time. While the general consensus seems to be that 3D Home Entertainment is not there yet, it's silly to think that the technology won't improve, and that at some point, whether it's in 3 years or 20, 3D will most likely be the standard - without all the headaches, nausea, eye strain, bluriness, etc. It's inevitable. Like I've been saying, it is a step toward the future of cinema.

"Keep moving forward."

What's the next step to the future then, Smell-O-Vision?

The quote you should have put (to fit your opinion that is) should be "Keep moving backward." 3-D is as gimmicky as it was decades ago. The technology may improve, but no matter what you say, it's unnecessary and I personally will never buy a 3-D TV. I don't see the appeal, I don't see how it's anymore entertaining, and as far as I can tell, it's only been slightly immersive in a handful of movies, and movies can be a lot more immersive WITHOUT 3-D, if they just use original stories and developed, well-rounded characters.

But again, this is all your opinion. Believe it or not, some people actually LIKE it. Regardless of your opinion of those people, the fact that "you don't see the appeal" does not change the fact that many people DO see the appeal, many people DO find it more entertaining, and many people DO find 3D films more immersive. For many movies, I am one of those people. I'd like to think it's fairly obvious that I'm not some bumbling buffoon who is simply easily amused, as you'd like to think. I actually LIKE 3D sometimes. Is that such a hard concept for you to grasp? That just because YOU hate it, doesn't mean EVERYONE does?

While smell-o-vision is hardly what I had in mind, your moving in the right direction. I think the future of cinema, which I already have stated multiple times over the last couple pages, is something closer to virtual reality - something completely immersive, where you are literally part of the film. Now, obviously that won't happen for decades. But the first logical step to get from standard film of today to something completely immersive is 3D. Regardless of whether it works well, and regardless of whether or not you like it.

[jpanimation]

Picked up the ironpack at Best Buy and it’s freaking gorgeous. Ranks up there with Sleeping Beauty’s steelbook.

[singerguy04]

Picked up the ironpack at Best Buy and it’s freaking gorgeous. Ranks up there with Sleeping Beauty’s steelbook.

I agree! My only complaint is that you can see the clear plastic of the hinges on the sides. If it's not going to have a slipcover, I wish that the outside looked more completely iron like the BatB cover. I'm not going to spend too much time being concerned about that though, I just hope they continue this idea with LatT and Cindy! (as well with the rest of the DE's)

[TheSequelOfDisney]

My fiance was only 4 when The Lion King came to theaters

That's okay. I was only two when it came out.

It would be cool to see this in the theater, but I don't know if I'll be able to. I haven't watched the film in ages and I don't really have an urge to spend $13 to see a movie that I is only so enjoyable.