DVDizzy Forum

Is anyone buying them to future proof their collection and have them if and when they might upgrade? I'm pro blu ray as the next nut on here, but I'm NOT too sure about the 3D Blu Rays...

I MIGHT get them just becasue I'll upgrade my television soon, and the covers are nice, but I'm not too sure.

You guys?

We have so far:

A Christmas Carol

i think i will buy some titles, but not all. and then, i will only buy movies i think will benefit by being 3d [aladdin for example]
chances are, i will rent them first and then decide. 3d movies arent in stores here yet, but the tvs are. i just upgraded to a flatscreen a year or so back, so not wanting to spend another $3000NZD on another tv just yet.

right now, im not buying every disney blu ray released, only the pixar titles. im sure i will end up kicking myself, but couldnt justify spending $30NZD on a dvd and then $50NZD on a blu as well. [this is before the blu+dvd packs came out]

Hmmm, idk. I don't really care for them. I'll stick to original Dvds and Blus. Besides I think the 3D on the cover ruins the artwork too.

I'm sticking with standard Blu-ray. I just got my first HDTV in October, and my first Blu-ray player a week ago on Christmas, so I am not upgrading anytime soon.

I know there is something to be said about getting the 3D combos just to be safe, but the 3D thing honestly doesn't do it for me. I've only seen 2 movies in 3D in my life, Tangled and James Cameron's "Ghosts of the Abyss," and I can do without it.

I am actually looking forward to experiencing Tangled without the 3D, when I get it on Blu-ray.

A lot of people think 3D is a novelty that is going to wear off, but only time will tell.

I'm not buying 3D.

I thought about it because certain scenes in Tangled looked great in 3D, but the other day I saw the movie in 2D and thought it looked better and brighter. My eyes were able to choose new areas and details to look at, not only what the 3D was forcing my attention on. The only scene that looked better in 3D was "I See the Light".

DancingCrab wrote:The only scene that looked better in 3D was "I See the Light".

Totally agree, nothing else really stands out in my mind from Tangled that benefited from 3D viewing, other than the lanterns scene.

It's interesting that only the 3D combo pack is currently up for pre-order at Amazon, I am wondering if this is an effort by Disney to push 3D on consumers.

I was all for buying the Blu-ray/DVD combo packs even when I wasn't even considering a Blu-ray player yet, but I just don't feel the same way about the 3D combos. Do you think Disney will eventually only offer the 3D combo packs, so we have no choice but to get the 3D version with the standard copies?

I'll buy them for the new releases like A Christmas Carol or Tangled - for just £1 or £2 more, I might as well future proof, but I won't rebuy a title if it's one I've already bought like Alice until I get a 3D TV.

Where I would make an exception is if they released a vault title like Beauty and the Beast in 3D as it could potentially be some years before it was out of the vault again.

It's fine for the theaters if the projector is bright enough (and half the time it isn't) but I don't really see myself investing the extra money for having that novelty at home. Well, unless you could get the effect without wearing the glasses.

Unless there's virtually no price difference between the standard BD combo and the 3D BD combo, I'm sticking with the standard. To me there's no reason to go out of my way for 3D. I never really enjoyed watching the films in 3D in the first place and I get a headache and/or dizzy from watching them. To me it's not worth it. I don't even see it as future-proofing because I'll never want to watch a film in 3D out let alone at home.

I love 3D and will buy all the 3D-releases from Disney (and others) if I care about the movie, as soon as I get myself a 3D TV. Have already got Disney's A Christmas Carol on 3D Blu-ray because I bought a release with Blu-ray/3D Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy.

My eye doctor says that 3-D in your home is a bad thing. When you go to the theater you are only subjected to those glasses and the electronics involved in the Digital 3-D projection of the film for a coujple of hours.

My doctor says that if people value their eyesight they will think twice about having a 3-D Home Theater. Having to wear those glasses and subject your eyes to those electronic glasses is only a short term thing and if you have to wear them all the time for 3-D TV, you will be getting severe headaches, and your vision will deteriorate at a faster pace than if you don't subject your eyes to this type of television.

I will listen to him, I value my eyesight, and 3-D is just a passing fad and not worth the financial investment it takes to get into it at home.

Ask your eye doctor (opthalmologist, not optomitrist) and find out for yourself before making this investment.

I've bought 1 3D Blu-ray because it was a price mistake and a lot cheaper than the normal 2D Blu-ray.

Right now I have no plans to ever buy a 3DTV. I'm not a big fan of 3D, and still see movies in 2D at the theater when given an option.

3D is a gimmick. Whether you like the particular gimmick is up to you. I'm passing. I don't think it adds much to the film, and is only memorable in a few spots. (ex. lantern scene in Tangled; Carl's grand takeoff in Up) HD is the way to go.

I prefer 3D over 2d so long as the movie was shot that way rather than converted later, like alice or Narnia. though I do make exception for older movies where they can take their time, like Nightmare before Christmas or the upcoming Beauty and the beast. or even better, the toy story double feature and the upcoming ratatouille. these are movies that can be re rendered and be just as good as a modern 3d movie.

As for home use, I'll jump in on it once I can afford it, but its just not affordable enough yet.

I like 3D as is, but look forward to the day we can ditch the glasses. I'll be looking to buy Tangled and Toy Story 3 for the 3DS as soon as their released.

I'm not against 3D cinema, and I would normally go and see a film in 3D over the 2D option if it were there, but I honestly don't think it's entirely necessary. There's a great difference between watching a film in a 2D or 3D version than compared to watching a cropped fullscreen version or the original widescreen version, or to watching a colour film in black and white. The 3D certainly can enhance a film, but rarely does it necessarily make anything noticeably better. I finally got round to seeing How to Train Your Dragon on DVD and there were plenty of scenes that I wish I'd seen in 3D on a big screen, but in all fairness, I still enjoyed it in 2D, and had I not known that the film was first presented that way, I would have just wished to have seen it simply on a general big screen.

I must say, however, that 3D TV looks stupid. Part of me hates it because I can get freaked out by how fast technology moves, but the main problem I have is with the glasses. In a cinema, putting them on in preparation for a film and wearing them for an hour or two is fine, whereas watching TV is more spontaneous. 3D Blu-Ray isn't as spontaneous (so not that bad), but nonetheless a TV in a regular living room doesn't make that great a 3D screen (whereas a 3D cinema screen is the sole focus in its respective room). Plus, knowing me, I'd probably lose the glasses after five minutes.

I'm sick to death of 3D. I don't understand all the hype over it. If I prefer to see movies in 2D at the theater, then I'd prefer to see them in 2D at home, too.

I've never really seen the point of 3D. Sure it looks cool, but it's totally unnecessary. The first film I saw in 3D was Tron: Legacy, and I have to say that there wasn't anything overly spectacular in the 3D department. It just seems superfluous. I don't think 3D will easily make the jump from theater to home.

Only use I have for 3D is that I DO like the large Disney Movie Rewards points they come with.


I wonder if Reyquila is rebuying his Disney collection in 3D.

There are some much more spectacular 3D films than Tron: Legacy. The 3D in that wasn't really that great.

BellesPrince wrote:There are some much more spectacular 3D films than Tron: Legacy. The 3D in that wasn't really that great.

I think what I'm trying to say is that 3D doesn't add anything to the films that are in 3D. If the film is good, it shouldn't have to rely on it's 3D effects (Avatar for example? Terrible film; the only thing that helped it was the special effects).