Avengers: Age of Ultron - to 3D or not 3D?
May 8, 2015 5:53 AM   Subscribe

Is the 3D in Age of Ultron good, bad, or negligible? For my taste - I thought the 3D in Avengers 1 & Cap 2 was good & worth it, and the 3D in Thor 2 was fine but didn't impress me in any way as to make it better than watching it in 2D. (minor spoilers inside, please don't spoil me more)

I've seen enough on Tumblr to know I'm going to be annoyed by a lot of Joss' writing (the Prima Nocta joke, the Natasha/Bruce plot, etc.), but, the continuity geek in me still needs to see it before I can watch this week's Agents of Shield. So, should I just see a 2D showing somewhere over the weekend? Or is the 3D cool/pretty enough to make it worth splurging for an IMAX real 3D after work tonight?
posted by oh yeah! to Media & Arts (25 answers total)
 
The only movies I see in 3D are those that were filmed as such (see: Avatar), so that's my disclaimer.
I saw AoU in 2D and loved it, plan on seeing it a 2nd time next weekend.

Have fun!
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 6:07 AM on May 8, 2015


I would stick to 2D. I am not a fan of 3D anyways but the problem I had with AoU was that the CGI of the opening battle is really obvious, due to the 3D effect.

Thankfully it settles down during the movie and I don't think there is any 3D specific FX, like an arrow shot straight at camera, or a explosion filling the screen.

Anothere thing is that 3D can get quite hard to follow, for me, when there is a lot going on onscreen at once. This happens a lot in AoU.

so IMO, do it 2D
posted by MarvinJ at 6:15 AM on May 8, 2015


Much like Guardians of the Galaxy, there is a lot of physical depth in some scenes that gives the 3d worth a go. There are more than a few scenes(that I won't spoil) that use depth in the scenes to add layers of action(though not in an overwhelming way).

That being said, it does not do the gimmicky, "HA! we threw something at the audience and it totally looked like it hit you in the head" thing that I hate (see: Transformers)
posted by Twain Device at 6:15 AM on May 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


I watched it in 2D and it was still plenty visually overwhelming.
posted by mymbleth at 6:26 AM on May 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


If the only way you can see it in IMAX is by seeing in 3D, though, def. go with 3D. Otherwise it's pretty alright but nothing to write home about.
posted by griphus at 6:29 AM on May 8, 2015


I saw it in 3D last night in a regular (non-IMAX) theater and it was impressive but a little all over the place and harder to follow that way I thought. It's also a dark movie and I felt like the glasses made it just a bit harder to see everything that was going on. I think it will still be plenty great if you see it in 2D
posted by jessamyn at 6:32 AM on May 8, 2015


I saw it in 3D, didn't make *that* much of a difference to me. It's a visually great fun movie.
posted by kschang at 6:39 AM on May 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


I saw it in 3D and didn't think it added a lot.
posted by transient at 6:40 AM on May 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Best answer: I also liked 3D in Cap 2 and GotG. I liked it in AoU but it wasn't totally necessary - I think you could go either way. CGI in the opening scene is very obvious in 3D.

That said, the Star Wars trailer in 3D was freaking awesome. I'd watch AoU in 3D just for that.
posted by bookdragoness at 6:42 AM on May 8, 2015 [4 favorites]


nthing that it was just "ok."

A lot of the really impressive action happens on a scale that I don't think works overly well in 3D. And AoU is a movie that can stand on its own in two dimensions just fine.
posted by sparklemotion at 6:51 AM on May 8, 2015


There wasn't anything I saw that was enhanced by the 3D, so I think 3D for this movie is just a way to suck some dollars out of your pocket.
posted by xingcat at 6:52 AM on May 8, 2015


I enjoyed in in two dimensions just fine. I do like 3D, but I couldn't see it being more immersive.
posted by tilde at 6:56 AM on May 8, 2015


Saw it in 3d, which added nothing to my enjoyment. Seemed like it was not well done in this movie.
posted by boo_radley at 7:20 AM on May 8, 2015


I too saw it in 3D – if it costs you extra, nah, it wouldn't really be worth it. That said I did like it in 3D, with the caveat that I don't pay extra to see 3D movies at our theatre.
posted by fraula at 7:34 AM on May 8, 2015


If you already know you are going to be annoyed with it and are just forcing yourself to see it for continuity purposes, don't bother with the 3D. Personally I really enjoyed the movie, and I thought the 3D was well done, but if it's going to leave a bad taste in your mouth anyway, save your money.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:35 AM on May 8, 2015


As noted previously, the movie wasn't shot in 3D, so it wasn't designed with any particular visuals in mind that would really take advantage of the technology. And the post-conversion doesn't add much beyond some extra depth, which isn't that noticeable. Guardians of the Galaxy really benefited from the post-conversion 3D--it looked so nice in 3D I originally assumed it had been shot that way, I think the massive scale of the space stuff helped with that impression--but Age of Ultron doesn't.
posted by rabbitroom at 7:50 AM on May 8, 2015


I really enjoyed the movie in IMAX 3D and I would say - IMAX is good, 3D nice, but unnecessary.

(and those two things you mentioned didn't bother me at all -- however I did find Hawkeye's subplot of little inetrest)
posted by Julnyes at 7:57 AM on May 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


I saw it in 2D and had zero problems with it, just for a contrasting anecdote. (I don't particularly care for 3D.)
posted by restless_nomad at 9:06 AM on May 8, 2015


i saw it last night, too.

i'm old, kinda, but still have only seen two movies in 3d, I think. so i'm sort of entertained with that part and less entertained by the plot. obviously a wheedon movie, but with money to burn on special effects. 10 minutes worth of credits at the end. unbelievable number of people worked on that thing.

i rate it a 10/10 for the quality of the special effects.

i rate it a 4/10 for how effectively they were used. too much. to the point of distraction. it's basically a middle quality plot that is used to setup 10 minute chunks of special effects.

i rate the overall movie 5/10. that's where most movies i see fall. i'm not that easy to impress with CGI and any plot hole/anachronism/disconnect is the kiss of death.

i do not think i would have enjoyed it at all in 2d.
posted by FauxScot at 9:39 AM on May 8, 2015


Saw it in 3D. I thought it was filmed worked well in 3D, with some interior shots with a lot of depth that I think were quite effective. It's not in-your-face 3D at all, though.
posted by zippy at 11:24 AM on May 8, 2015


Best answer: I saw it in 2D on Monday and again in 3D yesterday. I have seen quite a few movies in 3D and own a 3D television and have the glasses, 3D Blurays, etc.

I was happy that I saw it in 3D. The best uses of depth were in the beginning and the end, but I always feel that the screen in the theater is like more of a window looking out than a flat surface, even in non-remarkable 3D scenes.

If you don't mind spending the extra few bucks and if you like 3D, I say go for it.
posted by tacodave at 2:53 PM on May 8, 2015


Response by poster: Thanks for the 3D info - was too tired out from this ridiculous pollen count to do anything but go home after work tonight, so, maybe Sunday somewhere.

(and, if there are more answers, please please please do not give me your opinions about the plot of the movie, this is veering into unspoiled territory for me when you're talking about Hawkeye.)

Oh, but is it true that there's only one end-credit scene this time, and no second one at the very end of all the credits per usual MCU movies?
posted by oh yeah! at 6:10 PM on May 8, 2015


CGI in the opening scene is very obvious in 3D.

It's really obvious in 2D too. Oh well.
posted by redfoxtail at 6:22 PM on May 8, 2015


I saw it in 3D on opening day because all of the 2D showings were sold out. Seeing it in 3D is fine. I doubt it's like, overwhelmingly more awesome than 2D because as far as I'm concerned, live action in 3D isn't usually mind blowing and it's really only the animated features that come out awesome in 3D.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:35 PM on May 8, 2015


One mid-credits scene, nothing post-credits.

I saw both 3D and 2D. The 3D didn't add anything except annoying glasses on your face.
posted by Ik ben afgesneden at 6:45 PM on May 8, 2015


« Older DC --> Ankara travel newb help   |   Is Global Entry worth it? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.