Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I want to UN-3D the movie.

This is topic I want to UN-3D the movie. in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000971

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-29-2011, 03:28 PM:

Watching 3D movies gives me a nasty headache. I hate it and I'm sick of 3D already. You can't watch a 3D movie without glasses unless you like to watch a blurry image so I'm reduced to sitting there with my hand over one eye for the whole movie. IT SUCKS.

I have a two pair of Real-D glasses and I got an idea:

I want to swap the lenses in both pairs of glasses so that they only show one field of the movie, effectively UN-3D-ing the movie.

So, do you think I can take, for instance, the left lens out of one pair of glasses, flip it around backwards and put it into the right side of another?

Has anybody tried this? How do you get the glasses apart without breaking them?

Any ideas?
T.I.A.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-29-2011, 03:38 PM:

I tried this with a pair of Master Image glasses. When you flip the lens around, it simply flips the direction of the polarity. So a left-eye lens becomes a right-eye lens when flipped.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 11-29-2011, 03:51 PM:

The solution even has its own website: http://www.2d-glasses.com/

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-29-2011, 03:53 PM:

That is not what Randy is suggesting. He is suggesting using two pairs of glasses to make one that has the left polorizer in both eyes and the other set that has the right polorizer in both eyes.

Should work fine.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2011, 04:51 PM:

The 2D glasses do just that...give you two of the same eye.

-Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2011, 05:07 PM:

I wish Dolby would come out with a 2-D glasses like the one in the link. They could be different-colored and a theatre could sell a "regular" priced ticket to a patron using 2-D glasses.

Also: Why don't they come out with "clip-on" 3-D glasses for those people who wear regular glasses? Would make 3-D a lot more comfortable for those people.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-29-2011, 05:07 PM:

Exactly. One pair of glasses will only see the left field and the other pair of glasses will only see the right field.

I sat through the whole movie, today, alternately closing one eye or holding my hand over one lens of the glasses. I would watch so long in 3D until I started getting a headache then I'd block or shut one eye until the headache went away.

I decided that I just wanted to watch the movie in peace, without having to fuck around to see the picture.

I actually was able to swap lenses in two pair of glasses. All you need is an Exacto knife or a thin shim of some kind to separate the frames so that you can take the lenses out.

Just make it so one pair of glasses has two left eyes. By elimination, the second will have two right eyes.

Next time we see a movie in 3D I'll try it out to see how it works.

Mike: Do you have a pair of old clip-on frames that you can remove the lenses from? I don't see why you couldn't remove the lenses from a pair of movie glasses and put them into an old pair of clip-ons.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-29-2011, 05:33 PM:

Mike, no reason why they can't do clip-ons. I got a cheap pair of clip-ons and took the lenses out of IMAX 3D glasses and jerry-rigged the polarized lenses in place of the sunglass elements. Works fine, although before I did this, I found that I can easily just put the 3D glasses over my perscription glasses and it works fine; I can watch the movie like that with no discomfort. In fact, that's exactly how I wear sunglasses all the time -- right over my regular glasses. I make a little S-bend in the metal arms of the sunglasses so they rest on the arms of my regular glasses for support.

Randy, the thing about the 3D-to-2D conversion glasses is, although they will work perfectly fine, it means that the patron would still have to wear glasses and as we know even from the discussions on these pages, that the "I can't stand wearing 3D glasses" crowd -- you know, those who seem to become instant basket cases even at the thought of having to wear glasses of any kind while watching a movie -- those babies will still whine and kvetch like two-year-olds about how they hate to put glasses of ANY kind on their heads. I say, the first time anyone says, "Oh I just hate wearing those 3D glasses," they should be permanently banned from seeing any 3D movies EVER and forced to stay home and watch the 2D DVD when it comes out.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-29-2011, 06:00 PM:

I do not see why there is a problem with those of you who do not like 3-D movies. There was a time when a auditorium was showing the 3-D version and 2-D in another. I have noticed most theatres in my area now show the 3-D version and 2-D in the same auditorium by staggering the show times. The first in 3-D, the 2nd in 2-D, etc. In a week or two, the movie moves over to another auditorium and finishes it's run in 2-D only. I know of no theatre that had played a movie only in 3-D through out it's run. When all 3-D movies can also be seen in 2-D, why do you bother to see it that way during a 3-D performance by wearing altered glasses that you probably hate to wear that dims the picture slightly.

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-29-2011, 06:10 PM:

Sadly Claude, there are some locations that are "forced" to run 3D only of the print due to: not enough screens open to do the 2D version, esp with smaller complexes, or of a studio contractral nature were they want the 3D to have the majority of the times, then maybe one showing of the 2D at a much later time.

-Monte

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2011, 06:37 PM:

Except you're still paying 3D ticket prices. That is immoral and persuades studios to keep making their 3D horseshit. Just don't go to 3D movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2011, 06:44 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Sadly Claude, there are some locations that are "forced" to run 3D only of the print due to: not enough screens open to do the 2D version, esp with smaller complexes, or of a studio contractral nature were they want the 3D to have the majority of the times, then maybe one showing of the 2D at a much later time.

This isn't as true as it used to be. Most 3D movies now come on "combo drives" meaning the 3D and 2D versions are both on the same drive. You just need a key for each version. So it's possible to show both versions on one screen. We've done this with all of our 3D movies since about the beginning of this year.

The only downside is the studios understandably want the "prime" showtimes for the 3D, so it tends to reduce attendance for the 2D shows. But at least we are able to offer 2D showtimes.

But the "2D glasses" approach would fix most of the problems. You could sell a "regular" priced ticket to someone using the 2D glasses. The only problem remaining would be having to wear the glasses at all. I guess only time and technology will fix that one.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2011, 06:49 PM:

Claude,

The "inventor" of the "2D glasses" made them for his wife because he wanted to see the movie in 3D but it gave his wife headaches...so she would put the 3D glasses on during the "action" sequences and the 2D version on for the rest.

The video that introduced them: http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrothers#p/search/0/SsJHbw5iRds

-Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2011, 07:59 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
But the "2D glasses" approach would fix most of the problems. You could sell a "regular" priced ticket to someone using the 2D glasses. The only problem remaining would be having to wear the glasses at all. I guess only time and technology will fix that one.

The OTHER problem is that the movie would be unacceptably dark (which plagues all 3D systems due to the silly acceptance of 4-6fl standard). If the studios permitted what you are proposing, then why even bother with DCI standards?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-29-2011, 08:02 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
of 4-6fl standard

like watching movies on a Drive-in screen at times...

No, the reason of that one comment of mine where the limited amount of screens open comes from what I've seen in certain ads with some large circuits that have mulitple locations in one city: one plex with a higher amount of screens will have both viewing formats of the one feature, whereas another plex with lesser screens are "forced" to do 3D feature only since their other screens are still busy with features in those houses where the owners don't want to unload a busy feature for a split format showing of a new feature.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2011, 09:00 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
If the studios permitted what you are proposing, then why even bother with DCI standards?

Because 99% or more of the people would still be watching 3-D of course. The 2-D glasses might bring in some people who might skip the movie otherwise. It would just be an accommodation. Nobody is suggesting it's an "ideal" solution. Just a compromise for those people who can't tolerate or don't like 3-D.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2011, 09:04 PM:

If theaters must provide special ramps and handicapped spaces for customers in wheelchairs and special hearing impaired systems for the hard of hearing...there should be 2D versions mandated for people who get headaches from 3D.

...and not at crappy showtimes either.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2011, 09:09 PM:

Well actually I would agree with that! I would prefer to offer some "good" showtimes for the 2D crowd.

Of course the studios would never bother with thinking about that because single screens don't exist to them (unless we owe them money).

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-30-2011, 01:04 AM:

By the way, my wife picked the movie. It was "Three Musketeers."
It was the early bird show at the dollar theater. Tickets were only three bucks, including the glasses. So, the upcharge for 3D was moot. It's probably the only way I'd ever watch a 3D movie anyway.

As a sidebar... There was an older lady, sitting at the back of the theater, who had a stroke during the movie.

The woman's husband started calling her name in the middle of the movie. At first I thought he was just being an asshole but, after a minute, I knew there was something wrong.

I went back and looked at the woman. She was sitting there, frozen. She looked all glassy-eyed and one side of her face was slack. When I asked the guy if he knew his wife was having some kind of seizure or something, he said this never happened before. I just said, "She's having a stroke. Call an ambulance RIGHT NOW!"

I went out to the lobby to find help but the usher just stood there with a stupid look on his face. I finally found the assistant manager who called the medics.

About a minute later, the woman came to again. She was trying to convince her husband that she was all right. I told them, "No! If she has another one, she might not wake up again!"

About five minutes later, the paramedics came and took her to the hospital.

On the way out, I was joking to my wife that the 3D movie probably caused that woman to have a stroke. I was only half serious but, as my headache was subsiding, I gave that a second thought.

Maybe the 3D movie did cause her to have a stroke! [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-30-2011, 01:14 AM:

Definitely the movie's fault! [Razz]

read me

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-30-2011, 01:53 AM:

The thing with Breaking Dawn causing seizures may be legitimate. I have had to call paramedics twice since Breaking Dawn opened for people experiencing seizure like symptoms. In both cases, they walked out of the movies with about 15-20 minutes left. This is anecdotal and it may just be coincidence, but it suggests there might actually be something to it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-30-2011, 03:21 AM:

That story in the Sacramento article reminds me of the 1971 film, "Andromeda Strain" - the one doctor saw a flashing red light in the hallway, collapsed to the floor and went into horrible convulsions (course, it was all part of the script), but have heard of these 'strobing lights' can set off a seizure.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-30-2011, 08:06 AM:

I was there, several years ago, when kid had a seizure while playing a video game at Tinseltown. It was the flashing screen that caused it. He said it had happened before.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2011, 09:04 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Why don't they come out with "clip-on" 3-D glasses for those people who wear regular glasses? Would make 3-D a lot more comfortable for those people.

I'm hoping for Dolby 3-D contacts!

quote: Randy Stankey
I was there, several years ago, when kid had a seizure while playing a video game at Tinseltown. It was the flashing screen that caused it. He said it had happened before.

A neighbor of mine also suffers from this and she always had seizures when she was on the internet or computer. I discovered that her CRT computer monitor was set to 60hz scan frequency and that caused the seizures. I upped it to 90 hz and she hasn't had a seizure in many years. Yes, she is epileptic and I bet that Tinseltown kid is too...

Mark

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-30-2011, 09:35 AM:

The frequency of strobe lights (used in firealarms) is PERFECT for causing epileptic seizures. Louis

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-30-2011, 11:00 AM:

Well, at least the paramedics will already be on the way. [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-30-2011, 12:45 PM:

Instances of Photosensitive Epilepsy have occurred in propeller aircraft and helicopters when the shadows of the rotating blades in bright sunlight set up a flash rate that triggers seizures in some people.

And then there was the infamous Pokemon incident that occurred in Japan on 16 December 1997 during the airing of episode 38 of the first season (Electric Soldier Porygon). Apparently, a 6-second shot near the end of the episode, consisting of alternating full frames of bright red and blue at a 12Hz rate, caused seizure symptoms in some 685 children across the country.

Kinda sorta back on topic, the linked article states that 3D movies in cinemas are an unlikely trigger for photosensitive epileptic reactions, due to the low light levels involved, though the woman in Randy's case may have been an exception.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-30-2011, 01:07 PM:

I didn't even know the woman but it was scary to see her just sitting there, virtually catatonic, with her eyes glassed over and her face gone slack. I can only imagine how her husband must have felt.

I don't know that it was a stroke but her symptoms certainly seemed like it. It could have been an epileptic seizure or it could have been something else but, given the circumstance, it's better to be safe than sorry and treat it like it was a stroke unless and until we have more information.

Like I said, if it was a T.I.A. or a stroke, this was just a warning shot. T.I.A.s can double up and turn into strokes without warning. If that happens it is quite possible that she'll never wake up again. Even if it's not a friend or family member, it just makes me sick to my stomach to even think that.

The paramedics took her away just a few minutes later so I don't know what happened to her. I sincerely hope she's all right.

This whole episode really gets me thinking. Maybe the 3D movie didn't cause her seizure/stroke but the circumstances just seemed like a weird coincidence. Watching the movie gave me a splitting headache. Thus the reason for wanting to make Un-3D glasses.

Right now, I'm just wondering whether Un-3D glasses might have actually helped this woman avoid a stroke/seizure or, at least, lessened the problem.

The viewer's eyes and brain probably have to do twice the amount of work to in order to focus and process the synthetic 3D images seen in the movie. I wonder whether that workload is too much for some people, especially the elderly or people with predisposition to seizures and strokes. I'm wondering whether this effect operates over and above the neurological processes or malfunctions that that cause flicker epilepsy.

The problem is that we just don't know what's happening. The general public hasn't been exposed to 3D imagery enough for the medical community to gather enough data. Even if they could, I don't know if there are enough people who are affected for them to bother doing the research. I bet, if the 3D fad continues, there will be more people who have this problem.

As such, I am beginning to think that exhibitors of 3D movies should have Un-3D glasses available for people who need them so that they can watch movies along side their friends and family without having strokes, seizures or getting migraine headaches.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2011, 01:08 PM:

This new direction of the topic reminded me of something that happened when I was a kid. My family had gone to a drive-in with another family. The movie was Disney's "Million Dollar Duck."

At some particularly funny point in the movie, the other family's dad started laughing uncontrollably and wound up losing his breath. It was as if the wind had been knocked out of him. He hadn't been eating or drinking anything at the moment so he wasn't choking, but he just couldn't breathe. For about a minute we all thought he was having a heart attack or something. But then he eventually caught his breath and was OK. To this day I don't know WHAT happened to him. So I guess a movie can be TOO funny.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-01-2011, 07:27 AM:

Up here any venue that uses strobe lights is required to post a warning that the performance will contain the use of strobe lights

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-01-2011, 07:51 AM:

I don't even know why that should be a requirement. It just makes common sense. Theaters should just do it. If they don't they are basically laying a trap for a small percentage of their customers.

Look at it from the practical side. As the operator of a theater, I wouldn't want people having seizures or passing out in the middle of a show. It's bad showmanship and it's bad for business. Any good businessman should post warnings when he uses strobes, fog effects or other things that might make the audience have difficulty. (Unless it's only for a short duration or a small amount of smoke or fog.)

Thankfully, these things don't happen every day but they happen often enough that almost all of us know that they can happen and several of us have witnessed it happening. We are all, essentially, on notice that it can happen at any time.

Same goes for Un-3D glasses. Do I think that theaters that show 3D movies should be required to have them? No, but any theater worth its salt should know that some people don't like computer generated 3D movies or are negatively effected in some way.

It only makes sense that they would want to serve their customers as well as they can.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-01-2011, 09:23 AM:

On the breaking dawn of folks having issues yup we had it. Came out to go the bathroom he was glassy eyed and fainted while washing his hands. We got him in the lobby and called EMT's he was non responsive for sometime then seemed to come out of it.

Took him to the Emergency room but he was fully recovered before he got there.

Posted by Matthew Black (Member # 6294) on 12-01-2011, 10:45 AM:

Indeed we to had an issue with the midnight Breaking Dawn. A girl maybe in her 20s started to have siezures near the end of the movie. Her family who was with her claimed she had never had any before.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-01-2011, 01:07 PM:

Wow, Randy, that certainly is jumping to an unproven conclusion. The strobing in the TWILIGHT movie was the specific red flashing that caused the problem, not the 3D technology. ALL movies "strobe," be they 3D or 2D. Frame rate in 3D digital is MUCH faster and if anything, it should be less problematic than even regular 2D movies. 24fps certainly is a strobe. 30fps or 60fps for video or higher rates for computer monitors are pure strobes too, so is all DCinema. Should we post warning signs on every TV and monitor that there is some vague possibility they may cause fits in a very VERY small percentage of the population -- something which hasn't at all been studied or proven?

And Randy, there is no cause and effect showing that you got a headache BECAUSE of the 3D -- it is quite plausable that you just got a headache and would have gotten one no matter what you were doing. Why not attribute it to anything else in the theatre -- the cleaning solutions they used in the rugs, or anything else you encountered in the environment that day. If I attributed my headaches to whatever activity I am doing at the onset of one of one of my migraines, I would wind up thinking EVERYTHING causes headaches. If you got headaches CONSISTANTLY from 3D movies, then you may be on to something and then it would be YOUR responsibility to avoid going to them, but you got a headache in just THAT one and you jump to such a radical conclusion?

quote: Randy Stankey
Thankfully, these things don't happen every day but they happen often enough that almost all of us know that they can happen and several of us have witnessed it happening. We are all, essentially, on notice that it can happen at any time.

Thankfully they don't. And when you say, "often enough," what does that mean? Across the country people are going into catatonic fits from watching 3D movies? Thing is, there will always be a percentage of people getting sick in theatres if you actually tabulated data from every theatre in the country. People get sick randomly anywhere and so there will be people getting sick in theatres. You are making a wild leap attributing that to motion picture technology in general and 3D in particular with no actual evidence of any cause and effect. You say "we are all on notice that (people can get sick] at any time" -- yes, and so....? You are saying what, exactly? Everyone going into a theatre is at risk of stroke, epilepsy, heart attack BECAUSE of the 3D? And they it can be fatal, right? That movies and 3D movies are a national health risk and need to be warned? Really?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2011, 02:23 PM:

Also (and Frank touched on this) who's to say that whatever happened might not have happened anyway? We had a guy collapse in the theatre a few years ago but nobody blamed the movie. We've never had anyone get sick from any movie that I know of, not even the Blair Witch puke-fest.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-01-2011, 03:29 PM:

I've had people vomit on the auditorium floor once in a while. The last time was during the dress shop bathroom scene in Bridesmaids; the time before that was during the flying outhouse scene in the last Jackass movie. No doubt that those were caused by the movie.

I've only had one person collapse in the theatre so far, and that was several years ago -- an old guy came out after the show and said that he couldn't rouse his wife. I called the ambulance to take her away and never heard anything more about how that turned out.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-01-2011, 03:29 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
I bet, if the 3D fad continues, there will be more people who have this problem.

...like potiental lawsuits.. Bet sometime there will be posted a warning on this potiental hazard of watching 3D movies..

Film images actually strobes at 48 pulses due to the double swing of the shutter blade per frame.

Actually seeing 24 pulses would drive anybody crazy.

-Monte

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-01-2011, 04:44 PM:

I am playing Twilight starting tomorrow and just received an "official statement" from eOne Films and Summit Entertainment that I am supposed to post at my box office.

quote:
It has come to our attention that about 90 minutes into “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” there is a scene containing flashing lights that may cause seizures in people who are susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2011, 07:01 PM:

Maybe you could blow that sign up to poster size and put "DANGER!" in great big red letters across the top. Then stand back and watch the curious kids stream in to buy tickets.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-01-2011, 08:07 PM:

Want to UN-3D a movie? See it in 2D. Problem solved.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-01-2011, 10:11 PM:

^^^
I think you'll find the discussion is about theaters that for whatever reason don't have a chance to run the movie in 2D but still want to get the sales from people who don't do well with 3D...

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-02-2011, 12:20 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
We've never had anyone get sick from any movie that I know of, not even the Blair Witch puke-fest.

Boy we sure did! I was working at a theater with 80 foot wide screens and 3 way masking. The 1.33 within 1.85 was awful and when we screened it we KNEW people would be complaining, because they wanted those "giant screens". So I took a very short lens, cut a custom aperture plate, re-aligned the lamp and such and blew that sucker up. Amazingly I had enough height! It was literally IMAX, and of course it was blurry and grainy, but so was the movie. People LOVED it and kept talking about how wonderful it was. We did insane sell-out business for weeks on that giant screen. The normal screen did no business at all.

And never had there been so much vomit! [Razz]

quote:
It has come to our attention that about 90 minutes into “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” there is a scene containing flashing lights that may cause seizures in people who are susceptible to photosensitive epilepsy.

They should make a DCP of that to add to the playlist. Either that or Joe could make one like this:

quote:
It has come to our attention that “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1” is such a piece of crap movie that it may cause seizures in people who are susceptible to bad movies.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-02-2011, 12:44 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
I think you'll find the discussion is about theaters that for whatever reason don't have a chance to run the movie in 2D but still want to get the sales from people who don't do well with 3D

I know exactly what the conversation is about, Chris. And I think you'll find theatre operators got smart and are making sure their customers have that option. The last movie I've shown only in 3D was Gulliver's Travels a year ago next week. We even showed The Lion King and Justin Bieber in 2D. Most if not all theatres in the Bay Area do the same thing, even with something like Cave of Forgotten Dreams. And if Randy's preferred theatre doesn't offer this choice, maybe he should take his business to another theatre that does.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-02-2011, 06:23 PM:

But Edward. The whole idea is for the 2-D fan to be able to watch a 3-D show in 2-D while sitting with his 3-D-loving friends and/or family. THAT'S what the discussion is about.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-03-2011, 12:43 PM:

All I am saying is that an individual can be proactive in the decisions of their own lives.

My wife hates 3D with a passion, and I accept that. I don't force her to see a movie in 3D against her will. If she wants to see Hugo, we'll see it in 2D. But even with her hatred of 3D, my wife still wanted to see Cave of Forgotten Dreams in 3D, and we had as close a spiritual moment as two apathetic agnostics can have while watching it.

Theatres more and more are understanding that not everyone wants to see a movie available in 3D in 3D. They are more and more giving these titles at least a split screen in their locations. So if there is a movie Randy and his wife want to see, maybe she can be more understanding and not force him to see things that give him a nasty headache, and maybe he can try to tolerate the occasional movie like Avatar that demands to be seen in 3D.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-03-2011, 03:00 PM:

The illogical thing I'm seeing here is the waste of money for the upcharge that the patron is paying for if one wants to "un-3D" the movie while watching it.

Best catch it in 2D, if possible, so fundage isn't wasted.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-03-2011, 09:00 PM:

I can think of a couple of ways around that problem.

- Sell the un-3D customer a non-3D ticket.

- Charge the 3D price, but give the un-3D customer a "credit slip" to use in the concession stand.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-03-2011, 10:45 PM:

Frank, the idea that a movie could cause a stroke or seizure was supposition. I, nor anybody else, knows for sure. I am making conjecture based on that supposition. IF there is a problem, theaters could solve it by providing Un-3D glasses to customers who request them.

Again, you're saying that people who don't like 3D or people who can't watch it because of some (cojnectured) problem just shouldn't watch 3D movies. That is right [u]to a point.[/u]

In some cases, the movie isn't presented in 2D. At the theater I went to, that was the only version of the movie available because it's only a 6-screener.

In many cases, people who want to watch a movie with friends or family end up being the odd one out because of their inability to watch the movie in 3D. Their friends and family have to pick another movie that isn't their first choice or else the odd person just can't go.

If you have a dietary restriction like diabetes, hypoglycemia, lactose intolerance or whatever, you know what it's like not to be able to share a meal with family and friends. This is just another exclusion.

It just sucks to be left out of things all the time.

And, YES! 3D movies DO give me a splitting headache.
If I cover one eye with my hand or close one eye, the headache starts to go away in only a minute or two. If I take off the glasses and just watch a blurry movie, the headache starts to go away, as well. If I put the glasses back on or uncover/open my eye, the headache starts coming back again. I did this about a half dozen times during the movie.

It sucks when you have to fidget just to watch a movie.

Next time I go to the movies, I will either bring my home made Un-3D glasses or else I just won't watch it. I'd rather wait until the movie comes out on DVD.

I say that and I WORK in the movies!

This is the shit that is killing movie theaters. Theaters just aren't providing product that people want to watch, the way they want to watch it.

Having Un-3D glasses is a very simple way to provide a service to people who will potentially pay to watch a movie before it comes out at the video store.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-03-2011, 10:58 PM:

quote:
- Sell the un-3D customer a non-3D ticket.

- Charge the 3D price, but give the un-3D customer a "credit slip" to use in the concession stand.

Although I can see wanting to be nice about this, I'm afraid it would open a whole can of worms. First of all, who is providing the "un-3D" glasses? If the customer is providing the glasses, then other customers could reasonably argue they should get a discount or credit if they provide their own glasses. If we are providing the glasses, then who pays for the expense of the glasses?

And if we're willing to give the customer a discount or credit for not seeing 3D by wearing the "un-3D" glasses, do we take the step of actually checking the glasses to be sure they do what the customer claims, or do we take them on their word.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-03-2011, 11:51 PM:

If you want to see this movie, the ticket price is $x. End of story, problem solved.

Nobody expects a reduced ticket price if they are deaf in one ear -- why is this different?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-04-2011, 12:52 AM:

Burger King doesn't charge you any less if you order a burger without pickles and lettuce. Why would a theater charge any less if you ordered a movie without the 3D?

Regardless of whether it is 3D or Un-3D, the theater still has to provide the glasses. Those are not without cost.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2011, 12:27 PM:

Thing is, you would probably only have a few "un-3D" customers so it wouldn't be a big deal to give them a break. On the other hand, Randy has a point.

Either way, it's very bad practice to let people think that the higher 3D ticket price is "for the glasses." Anytime somebody makes a comment to that effect we always tell them "it's not just for the glasses, it's for the $25,000 worth of equipment that makes the glasses work."

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-04-2011, 07:49 PM:

...or the fee that Real-D is charging...

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-04-2011, 08:02 PM:

...or just pure greed.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-04-2011, 08:33 PM:

Jesse wins!

Randy, I wasn't taking issue with using Un-3D glasses, in fact, I think it a very good idea in a plex where they are not offering the 2D version, to offer such an aid, although it certainly is a poor solution give how dull it makes the movie look even in 2D.

My only minor quibble with your post was that we should post warnings that 3D films are dangerous. It's bad enough 3D is presented at half the brightness of regular movies (you almost have to wonder if that might be equally detrimental to some people's eye physiology), but to then have the poor moviegoer, after he's paid his extra $3, worry that he might have a stroke for his efforts, is taking it way past the reasonable, IMHO. We will wind up like the TV ads for perscription drugs telling people the great things the drug does, such as clearing up rosatia (redness on one's face), then telling them that it's known to cause a rare condition that can lead to paralysis or death and in some cases, suicide.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-05-2011, 09:20 PM:

Summit started with warnings that are posted on the auditorium doors on flashing scenes in "Breaking Dawn" that could trigger seizures..

Thus, it might have already started with warnings which could drift over to 3D movies on warnings of potiental health hazards to patrons viewing the 3D effect in these movies

Gee, suddenly plain, good-ol' fashioned 2D movies can now be classified as, 'safe to view' ..

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-05-2011, 10:21 PM:

Monte, the difference is the issue with Breaking Dawn is linked to a known health issue.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no definitive medical study linking 3D to any specific health issues. Issues with headaches could just as easily be caused by the pressure of the glasses on one's temples or nose, as eye strain. It could also have to do with specific types of effects rather than 3D as a whole - in fact, I have heard that issues of nausea are usually related to objects coming out from the screen.

Until there is an established medical reason which suggests movie theatres should warn patrons, I do see where it is our business. People don't need to be warned that driving on curvy roads or riding roller coasters might make them sick to their stomach. I don't see 3D as being any different until medical professionals can find a legitimate health risk.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-05-2011, 11:47 PM:

The vast majority of roller coasters have had medical warnings on them as a way to release from liability for many years now.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-06-2011, 12:10 AM:

Chris, you're right, I had forgotten about those warnings. If memory serves, those usually relate to pregnant women, people with heart conditions, or other specific medical conditions which might be affected by the ride.

The point I'm making is that it's not our duty to warn people that something might make them uncomfortable unless there is a link to a known medical issue. Do we start warning people their butt might feel sore after sitting for 2 hours or that drinking a 44oz soda may result in the urge to urinate?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-06-2011, 12:54 AM:

I don't expect theaters to post big warning signs or anything like that. I definitely don't think it should be legally mandatory.

As I said, a theater that wants to make money will take care of its customers. Any theater that really does want to take care of its customers should figure out a way to handle this. When enough theaters decide on a good solution that works it will probably become a standard.

I don't really know how theaters should handle this (potential) problem.

What if they put them on the wrappers that the glasses come in?

As to the copy, I don't know either.

What about, "If you experience headaches, discomfort or aggravation of medical problems please contact a theater employee immediately."

I'm just guessing. I don't know for sure... [Shrug]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-06-2011, 01:48 AM:

Randy, something like that could, and should, be handled in any general safety information the theatre displays. Whether it's because of Breaking Dawn, 3D, or a completely non-related health issue, someone should contact the theatre management whenever there is an issue.

I don't think the theatre should be adding any kind of warning to the 3D glasses. For one, it creates extra expenses for printing and attaching the warning and for the extra clean-up. For two, it would almost be like the theatre is telling it's patrons not to watch 3D. 3D has been around long enough that people should know whether or not it bothers them.

As I said, unless there is an identified medical reason to do so, the theatre should not get into the business posting general warnings. While 3D may cause discomfort for some, it does not pose any known health risk.