On Hugo and 3D
I'm trying to work on an "actually seeing films in the cinema" thing for this year, so I went and saw my third film of 2012 in the cinema, Hugo, today. I decided that I'd see it in 3D, since it seems like everyone says it's a film worth seeing in that manner. And I have to agree; you could tell it was filmed in 3D because everything had that wonderful depth.
Of course, it also gave me the single worst 3D headache I've ever had, because everything had an element of 3D to it. I knew I was going to be in trouble when the Paramount logo flew in, and I couldn't actually look at it. I had to take off the 3D glasses several times in the film, just to give my eyes a rest, and took them off completely for the credits, which had the same issues as the Paramount logo.
I know that the script in my glasses isn't right, although it's not far off it -- I purchased a pair of prescription sunglasses when I had my eyes checked last December, but since they cost damn close to $1000 (since I insist on good lenses, and they needed to be graduated/bifocal) I'm waiting until March to get new plain ones -- and I don't know if the not-quite-right glasses had anything to do with it. There's also the fact that the Real3D glasses really don't go well over my everyday glasses, without which I wouldn't be able to see that there's actually a screen to be watching.
But because Hugo was one of those "so that's what 3D is for" films, which takes such good use of the technology and enriches the experience so much, it made the 3D eye strain so much worse (the last film I saw in 3D was Alice in Wonderland, I usually avoid 3D because of this issue). And now I keep thinking about how The Hobbit will also be one of those films that makes fantastic use of the 3D, being actually filmed in it and not converted later, but I honestly don't know if my eyes could handle the length of that film. Sigh. (It's also reminded me that, while it might be fun to relive my 16 year old self's obsession with Titanic -- I should go through and scan my school diary from 1998 sometime, it's a shrine to that film and Buffy -- that length of time in 3D may not be a fantastic idea. Kind of like when we were three inches from the screen the first time I saw it in the cinema, and had neck problems for days afterwards.)
And there was the trailer for The Hobbit before the film and it looked wonderful on that screen and now I want to watch the Lord of the Rings films except a). I only ever watch the extended editions, b). it's too late to marathon the extended editions, and c). I'm going away for the weekend and I don't want to stop at one film, dammit. #firstworldproblems
(I loved Hugo, despite the unfortunate ableism regarding the antagonist, and would recommend it to anyone -- even in 3D, if you can cope with the headaches)
This entry was originally posted at http://purple-smurf.dreamwidth.org/501880.html
Of course, it also gave me the single worst 3D headache I've ever had, because everything had an element of 3D to it. I knew I was going to be in trouble when the Paramount logo flew in, and I couldn't actually look at it. I had to take off the 3D glasses several times in the film, just to give my eyes a rest, and took them off completely for the credits, which had the same issues as the Paramount logo.
I know that the script in my glasses isn't right, although it's not far off it -- I purchased a pair of prescription sunglasses when I had my eyes checked last December, but since they cost damn close to $1000 (since I insist on good lenses, and they needed to be graduated/bifocal) I'm waiting until March to get new plain ones -- and I don't know if the not-quite-right glasses had anything to do with it. There's also the fact that the Real3D glasses really don't go well over my everyday glasses, without which I wouldn't be able to see that there's actually a screen to be watching.
But because Hugo was one of those "so that's what 3D is for" films, which takes such good use of the technology and enriches the experience so much, it made the 3D eye strain so much worse (the last film I saw in 3D was Alice in Wonderland, I usually avoid 3D because of this issue). And now I keep thinking about how The Hobbit will also be one of those films that makes fantastic use of the 3D, being actually filmed in it and not converted later, but I honestly don't know if my eyes could handle the length of that film. Sigh. (It's also reminded me that, while it might be fun to relive my 16 year old self's obsession with Titanic -- I should go through and scan my school diary from 1998 sometime, it's a shrine to that film and Buffy -- that length of time in 3D may not be a fantastic idea. Kind of like when we were three inches from the screen the first time I saw it in the cinema, and had neck problems for days afterwards.)
And there was the trailer for The Hobbit before the film and it looked wonderful on that screen and now I want to watch the Lord of the Rings films except a). I only ever watch the extended editions, b). it's too late to marathon the extended editions, and c). I'm going away for the weekend and I don't want to stop at one film, dammit. #firstworldproblems
(I loved Hugo, despite the unfortunate ableism regarding the antagonist, and would recommend it to anyone -- even in 3D, if you can cope with the headaches)
This entry was originally posted at http://purple-smurf.dreamwidth.org/501880.html