circles or spheres?

June 1, 2009 1:39 PM

Pixar's Up: 3d or 2d?

I love Pixar and I love animation. I want to see this film in its optimal setting.

Do I see this in 3d? I don't dislike 3d, but most of the time it seems too gimmicky to bother with. I'm taken out of the film half the time because I'm thinking about 3d.

posted by nushustu to media & arts (39 comments total)

Roger Ebert recommends 2D, for what it's worth.
posted by telegraph at 1:46 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

James Berardinelli:

Up is being offered in both 2D and 3D versions. I saw it in the former and was unaware of missing anything. Unlike some movies, this one does not the flaunt its 3D features in a way that those watching it in conventional theaters may feel as if they're missing something. The colors - especially those of the balloons and the plumage of a giant bird - are bright and cheerful, and will almost certainly lose something when diminished by the 3D glasses, so there's at least one compelling argument to see this in 2D. Regardless of how it's watched, Up showcases the fine animation that has become Pixar's hallmark. It is not as visionary as what we were presented with in WALL-E, but it puts to shame Dreamworks' Monsters vs. Aliens, where the obsession with 3D resulted in other shortcomings.

posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:47 PM on June 1

I saw it last night in 3d and barely noticed the 3d effects. I'd say save the five bucks and see the standard version.
posted by Bizurke at 1:51 PM on June 1

Mr. Pearlybob and Baby Pearlybob waited an extra 35 min for the 3D version. They both said they never noticed any 3D action and it wouldn't have mattered. Both LOVED the movie!
posted by pearlybob at 1:51 PM on June 1

I saw it in 3D and found it quite distracting. I vote for 2D.
posted by cazoo at 1:54 PM on June 1

We saw it in 3D. It didn't have a lot of fly-out-of-the-screen-into-your-face gimmicks to distract from the story, so I thought it would be fine in 2D. My husband was very happy we saw it in 3D because he liked the depth.
posted by ferociouskitty at 1:54 PM on June 1

I found the 3D distracting (but still loved the film, of course). There are a small handful of really neat shots that are fun in 3D (one great surprise shot in the abandoned house in the opening sequence, cliffs and all those views from the heavens) -- but the rest of it was either at best un-noticeable or, at worst, just got in the way (Especially when clouds floated in front of the camera -- talk about jarring you out of the film's world...)

I'm sure some people love the 3D (if you want the EXCITEMENT!) but I wish I'd seen 2D instead (because I want the art).
posted by rafter at 1:54 PM on June 1

I don't like how the 3D glasses dull the colors, so I saw it in 2D this weekend.

Unexpected bonus: Most people were opting for 3D showings, so I was able to buy tickets 5 minutes before a 2D showing and still get great seats.
posted by phatkitten at 1:55 PM on June 1

Do you have young kids? We gave our three-year-olds (who wear sunglasses regularly) the option of watching the movie without glasses, or with glasses so that the movie "pops." They insisted on the glasses -- but each one spent much of the movie taking them off or otherwise futzing with them (because they're not child-sized, they're the adult glasses with foam spacers on the arms, and because it's what kids do.)

So if you have young kids, absolutely 2D. However, I enjoyed the 3D¹ (which was mostly subtle but occasionally lovely, so never took me out of the film) even though we were off to the side, so I'd say 3D is the default choice.

One last note: one nice thing/drawback (depending on your point of view) with the 3D is that it gives you some tunnel vision -- I like it, because I'm easily distracted, but if you're claustrophobic² you might not like it as much.

¹I have glasses, over which the 3D glasses fit fine.
²My wife is claustrophobic but was not bothered by this; I'm just speculating that if tunnel vision triggers your claustrophobia, you might not like it.
posted by davejay at 1:59 PM on June 1

I saw it in 3D, and didn't find it distracting at all; after the showmanship of the 3-D trailers, the movie seemed subtle enough in comparison that the 3D felt like just another organic part of the film. I forgot I was watching it in 3D, to be honest. It's like reading Bone in the orginal black-and-white versus the new colored Scholastic edition; either one works.

That said, if you're the kind of person who gets distracted by the 3D, then yeah, by all means, see it in 2D. The artistry of the film depends in no way whatsoever on the 3D spectacle.
posted by Greg Nog at 2:01 PM on June 1

I saw it in 3D and loved it; my date kept bumping into me, trying to do a kind of body-English compensation for some of the strange angles of the shots. There is one sequence where there's so much action she got dizzy but this is exactly the shot that I felt was most worthy of the 3D.
posted by jet_silver at 2:01 PM on June 1

(By the way -- it seems like a common complaint among the 2D proponents is that the colors feel dull in the 3D version. Watching the film, I never for a second noticed that to be the case; the bird is bright as hell, the foliage is verdant, nothing felt greyish or dimmed in the slightest. that said, reading your original post and considering that it's extra cash for the 3D, you probably do want to stick with two dimensions. You probably also want to bring some tissues.)
posted by Greg Nog at 2:07 PM on June 1

3D mutes the brightness of the colors, and the color palette in this film is one of the greatest things about it. Definitely go for 2D.
posted by jbickers at 2:07 PM on June 1

I saw it in 3D because it was closer in location. I didn't notice a giant difference. Save money and see the 2D. Plus I hate being "told" what to focus on during a Pixar film.
posted by spec80 at 2:16 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

I saw it yesterday in 3D and thought that the 3D stuff was uncommonly well - even subtly - integrated into the film. As discussed above, there is never a moment such as the many in MONSTERS VS. ALIENS which is designed specifically to exploit the extended depth cues of the 3D system. This is one of the many reasons that M VS A felt so tacky and gimmicky. (Will someone PLEASE give Will Arnett a good role?) In UP, the 3D is as seamlessly integrated into the film as is its camera movement, the shading, the unbelievably subtle emotional content, and so forth. Every 3D effect supports a narrative, stylistlc, or emotional element in the film; they do not "stick out" (pun intended).

For my money, the Pixar folks are making the best films in Hollywood at the moment. The complexity and subtlety of these movies is really astounding to me, and they've folded the current fad for 3D quite naturally into the Total Pixar Experience.

Which is to say: if you appreciate the skill with which Pixar makes movies, you'll have one more element to appreciate if you see UP in 3D.
posted by Dr. Wu at 2:24 PM on June 1 [2 favorites has favorites]

The 3D glasses hide your tears when you're sobbing from grief during the early sad moments. I vote 3D. (Really. It worked for me!)

(FWIW, I saw it in 3D last night and think the $3 was worth it. It's good gimmicky fun the first 20 minutes, and well-done to the point that you forget you're wearing glasses the rest of the movie. I thought the colors were very vibrant; these aren't your old-school red/blue 3D glasses.)
posted by samthemander at 2:31 PM on June 1 [2 favorites has favorites]

I've not seen any of the recent 3D movies. How those of you who have to wear glasses deal with the 3D glasses? Are they as big a PITA as ever? I always found waring 3D glasses over eyeglasses to be disruptive to the effect.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:41 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

My wife and I saw Coraline, Monsters versus Aliens and UP all in 3D. With Coraline, the 3D effects added amazing depth and motion to the film, and while I was aware throughout the whole movie that it was in 3D, it never seemed gimmicky to me. With Monsters versus Aliens there were a lot of the expected 3D gimmicks, and that was fine since it was a comedy. I expected things to come popping out of the screen. I was also aware throughout the movie that it was in 3D. With UP, I totally forgot I was watching a 3D movie within the first half hour, because the 3D effects are just so well integrated into the movie itself. I could probably see Monsters versus Aliens again in 2D, but I can't imagine seeing Coraline or UP in anything other than 3D. I'm hoping that by the time the DVDs are released, there will be at least some semblance of a way to view them in 3D at home. Anything else would be slightly disappointing.

In short, the extra $3 for the 3D film is completely worth it.
posted by ralan at 2:51 PM on June 1

Movies are still pretty cheap as far as entertainment goes. See it both ways, then you'll be sure of getting the optimum version and you'll also be able to steer your friends right. And be sure to report back here, if you do!
posted by 6550 at 2:55 PM on June 1

Thorzdad- I wear glasses, and had no problems with the 3D glasses. These are not the old blue/red paper glasses you're probably thinking of. If anything, these look like Ray-Ban Wayfarer sunglasses. They fit right over my glasses, and I had no discomfort or disruption at all while watching the movies. We actually saw Coraline four times, and Monsters versus Aliens twice, and I had problems at all.
posted by ralan at 2:58 PM on June 1

Tacking on to this question... the only theatre in my area is showing UP in 3D, without the 2D option (which I prefer for a myriad of reasons). With the new RealD system, do you get a clear 2D image if you take off your 3D glasses?
posted by cvp at 2:59 PM on June 1

cvp:
No, you'll get a fuzzy-looking picture if you remove your glasses (you'll be seeing both "eyes" of the 3d projected image).

I saw "UP" in 3d; put me in the "barely noticed it" camp.
posted by shino-boy at 3:15 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

Thorzdad: I saw Coraline in 3D. The 3D glasses were large enough to fit over my regular glasses fine. It felt slightly awkward at first since the bridge of the 3D glasses sits farther forward on your nose than you're used to on your regular glasses, but I got used to that without too much trouble (within the first 10 minutes or so). The 3D effect itself seemed to work as it should.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:17 PM on June 1

I'll agree with ralin that Coraline benefited from the 3D, but disagree about UP. I saw it in 3D and felt like it would have been just as good if not better in 2D. With Coraline, though, I felt bad for those who saw it in 2D.
posted by papayaninja at 3:32 PM on June 1

I was definitely coming here to pimp the tear-hiding capabilities of the 3D glasses. Having seen (and LOVED) it in 3D, I have to say that 2D probably does a disservice to this film. My vote is for 3D.
posted by lizzicide at 3:44 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

Have you seen a 3D film in the last couple of years? if not take the 3D. It's pretty rocking now.
posted by Artw at 3:44 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

What are the odds that you buy it on dvd/blu-ray later? Look at it this way, the theater is your only real chance to see it in 3D. you can always watch it in 2D later if you find it distracting.

gonna go see it in about an hour. definitely 3D.
posted by GeekAnimator at 4:05 PM on June 1

Incidentally, the closer you sit to the screen the more exaggerated the 3d effects will be. If you sit to the back they will definitely be muted.
posted by aubilenon at 4:06 PM on June 1

Just saw Up in 3D last night. Loved it! I certainly didn't notice diminished colors. I certainly did notice awesome 3D effects, but in no way did I feel taken out of the film. If anything, it drew me in further.
posted by funkiwan at 4:29 PM on June 1

We saw it in 3D and neither of us have seen any 3D movies since "The Rocketeer". That said, it was incredible. I agree with those who have said after 20 minutes you don't really notice the effect (by that I mean, it's pretty seamless). The 3D previews were pretty obnoxious and gimmicky, but in the movie itself, it was more Depth of Field stuff.

As far as blurriness, I took my glasses off at one point and the foreground was perfectly focused, but the stars behind Carl's head were doubles (which would stand to reason given the polarized glasses).

I agree with Artw, if you haven't seen a 3D movie recently, it's totally worth it. If you opt out, it's still an incredible movie.
posted by ThaBombShelterSmith at 4:36 PM on June 1

More on the tear-masking abilities of 3-D glasses.

Note: I haven't seen the movie, I just thought it was fitting
posted by Ufez Jones at 5:04 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

When watching a movie in 3D, I think not noticing the 3D is a feature, not a bug.
posted by jabberjaw at 5:32 PM on June 1

The 3D bugged my eyes in a few places, but I couldn't tell you if that's endemic to my eyes or the 3D process. The movie certainly doesn't require the added dimensionally, there are no "OMG it's right in my face" moments (though there are a few moments that are just the slightest bit more awesomely awesome for it; a lot of the movie is spent in the air, after all).

Don't worry about the gimmick. Pixar is far too deft to rely on cheap showmanship at the expense of a good story.

I saw the 3D version as a special treat with my 6-year-old, and enjoyed it.
posted by lekvar at 5:33 PM on June 1

At least in my 3d theater, the glasses looked just like the black-rimmed glasses that Mr. Fredreckson wears the whole movie. So there's a certain charm in looking back to see a whole theater of Mr. Fredrecksonses.
posted by cowbellemoo at 7:45 PM on June 1 [1 favorite has favorites]

I saw it today in 3D and now I regret not picking the 2D version, just for the chance to see the brighter colors. My only gripe about the 3D version has to do with the glasses' tendency to mute the color palette.

And I wish the glasses had been modeled after the aviator goggles.
posted by emelenjr at 8:49 PM on June 1

the 3d was very subtly done and really lovely. never cheap and never because they could, but because it adds something to the experience. i'm so happy i saw it in 3d!
posted by lia at 10:22 PM on June 1

With this particular film, I think it comes down top personal preference and your theater's quality of 3D projection.

The 3D effects in Up are more subtle than in most 3D movies. There are few to none object-jumps-out-at-you moments and there are no forth-wall breaking references to the effects either, so over the course of the film I could concentrate more on the (wonderful) filmmaking and less on the novelty of 3D.

As far as the projection goes, I've seen 3D films in several different theaters. The theater I saw Coraline at did have a noticeably darker screen when the glasses were on, but I saw Up at different multiplex in the same chain and there was no noticeably decrease in brightness or saturation of the picture. In fact, the effect made the characters and background literally pop out from each other.

You will probably be disappointed if you pay the extra 4 or 5 bucks for a crazy in your face 3D experience, but if you are looking for a masterfully subtle example of the technology that augments the filmmaking, I would have to recommend it.

BTW, I want the second davejay's comment about young kids. At *all* the 3D movies I've seen there have been young kids who seemed to pay more attention to the glasses than the movie itself. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something to consider.
posted by arcolz at 11:24 PM on June 1

I saw it in 3D. The effects were subtle but still entirely unnecessary.
posted by dmd at 5:26 AM on June 2

Add me in as a saw it in 3D but barely noticed it. Neither of my girls mentioned anything about the 3D experience, nor did my wife. If I had it to do over again, I would just see the 2D version and save $16.

The movie was awesome by everyone's vote, and we are still repeating various movie lines every day since seeing it.

But that is not unusual.
posted by genefinder at 7:59 AM on June 2