The Instigator
PacemakerGuy
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

3D Movies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,794 times Debate No: 20687
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

PacemakerGuy

Con

Today almost every other weekend a new movie comes out with 3D in the title. Recently movie studios have just been throwing this over movies to raise prices and to make people to go. Most of the movies out over the summer had 3D, but didn't have anything pop out at you. Isn't that what 3D is all about the experience of seeing images in the 3rd Dimension?
When I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D all it did was make the movie feel deeper and make the scene darker since the glasses today are like sun glasses. Most animated movies get the 3D experience over their movie just for more money.
The prices are ridiculous, it's almost $18.00 for a 3D movie, that barely has 3D working for it. I see movies just in 2D now cause of this, in the past year or so I've only seen one movie that had 3D going for it.
3D should be stopped because of how the studios just throw it over and it doesn't even work. The prices are horrendous too.
imabench

Pro

1) The point of having movies in 3D isnt to make the entire movie in 3D, its to add to the wow factor and to special effects to completely captivate the attention of the audience and awe them with scenes that look far more realistic and lifelike than regular 2D.... 3D movies add an extra element of awe to watching movies meant to look real or lifelike.

2) Not all movies are released in 3D, in fact most of them now are blackbuster hits that are being put back on the big screen, not these newer crappier movies like The Last Airbender or Piranha 3D that were box office bombs. Classics like the Lion King, Titanic, Beauty and the Beast, and Star Wars Episode I are currently the top 3D movies either in theaters or soon to be in theaters, and for many people thy get to go and see childhood classics with stunning special effects and clarity that almost puts to shame what they remember when they saw it last time in theaters.

3) "Most animated movies get the 3D experience over their movie just for more money"
Theres nothing wrong with that though.... Movies use computer generated effects just for more money too should that be banned?

4) " it's almost $18.00 for a 3D movie"
They cost $13 for a 3D movie at AMC theaters and many other movie theaters.... Which in some places are only a hair more expensive than regular 2D movies....

5) " I've only seen one movie that had 3D going for it."
So 3D can improve the quality of movies... (which movie was it?)

6) "3D should be stopped because of how the studios just throw it over and it doesn't even work. The prices are horrendous too."

So you think 3D should be banned from movie theaters on the grounds that you dont think it benefits movies (even though you said they can) and because the prices are too high (which you can avoid by not going). Thats like saying airplane travel overseas should be banned because airline companies dont care how you feel and because its too pricey....
Debate Round No. 1
PacemakerGuy

Con

I never said 3D should be banned it's just greedy how they throw it over movies. I just found out that the remake of The Great Gatsby will have 3D over it....now why the hell would that have to be in theater?
The one movie that it worked for was Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. It's best when they are FILMED IN 3D not just thrown over. Green Lantern and Captain America were HORRIBLE in 3D didn't even do anything just made the screen darker. Now why would it be 3D? More Money!!!
Critics LOVED that Rango wasn't in 3D cause they know it's all just crap now a days. It's just a waste of peoples money.
I was RIGHT ABOUT THE 3D PRICES!!! Where the hell are you seeing it's $13? Go on movietickets.com and look up for the IMAX 3D and it's $18.00. These prices are so horrible, who pays that for a movie? There are reports that say movie ticket sales are dropping, I bet it's about the 3D.
So many movies don't need the 3D treatment seriously, it doesn't help. 3D only works when it's a movie FILMED in 3D or they make an animated movie for 3D. Pixar is a great example for just throwing 3D over. I saw Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 in 3D and it did nothing. Only Avatar and Harold and Kumar 3D were MADE for 3D.
imabench

Pro

So not only does the Con think 3D movies should NOT be banned, admits that there are several movies in 3D he does endorse, and bases most of his argument off of his own opinions and no actual facts and probably a few lies, the main reason why the Con is against 3D movies is because he claims that movie companies dont take it seriously.

1) Some companies do take it seriously
2) We are in a transitional period of 3D in movies

- 1 - Some movie companies do put serious effort into making movies look better in 3D. Movies such as Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, Avatar, Harold and Kumar 3D, and quite a few Pixar movies incorporate 3D very successfully into movies due to hard work and respect for 3D by movie companies. It seems the Con only has it out for 3D because he has watched a few movies that he didnt like how they used 3D. Its hard to use 3D successfully though because 3D is a new science and companies are just trying to figure out if 3D has any moviegoer appeal to it and find out if its economical to make movies 3D.

- 2 - 3D is a new science and we may simply be going through a transitional period in how movies are made as Hollywood begins shooting in 3D. When silent movies were all the rage in the early 1900's, sound technology came out and movie companies were hesitant to go into making movies with sound because a good number of producers and movie experts thought that movies with sound was just a fad and might not last and if it would even be cost effective. The same thing is happening today with making movies in 3D with companies and producers trying to make heads or tails out of whether or not it is more appealing or economical.

We cannot just kill 3D movies while movie companies are still trying to figure out if people want to see 3D movies or not just because the Con saw a few movies that didnt use it well according to his own opinion.....
Debate Round No. 2
PacemakerGuy

Con

These movies that get rereleased in 3D such as Beauty in the Beast, why does that need to happen? Money? Just as I have been saying this whole time all they want is money. If I wanted to see Beauty and the Beast again in theaters, I would say awesome see it in 2D which a cartoon movie is MENT FOR!
There is also research that 3D can mess with your eye sight and give you massive headaches. Now why would someone want to gain pain during a movie? I don't want my eye sight to be screwed up where I need glasses in the future.
Recall the greatest movie you've ever seen, now would that be better in 3D? NO, think of The Godfather in 3D. That would just be greedy movie studios asking for more money. When they threw Back to the Future back in theaters for a weekend, they didn't have 3D over it to ruin it. I doubt when the Star Wars Episode 1 comes out in 3D it wouldn't feel any different.
You even never touched on my saying before about The Great Gatsby remake coming out in 3D, WHY THAT MOVIE? Will 3D even have anything to help that movie? I doubt Gatsby will be throwing stuff at the audience.
3D won't have a future in the coming year, it costs too much and many directors don't even get the point of it anymore.
3D use to be a fun thing to see, now it's just over used and annoying.
Back to my earlier point here, many scientists have said 3D isn't good for you at all, even the new technology of seeing it without glasses just hurts your eyes and vision.
imabench

Pro

I invite the Con to stop using his own opinions for most of his arguments, but I doubt he has the conduct to do so..... So whatever, Ill answer his rhetorical questions

"Just as I have been saying this whole time all they want is money"
This whole time ive been showing how thats your opinion and that there is nothing wrong with making money by putting classics back on the big screen in 3D....

"Recall the greatest movie you've ever seen, now would that be better in 3D? NO, think of The Godfather in 3D."
My favorite movie was Avatar, it was way better in 3D than in 2D, you may now be quiet.

"I doubt when the Star Wars Episode 1 comes out in 3D it wouldn't feel any different."
To quote the great Neal Patrick Harris, CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

"You even never touched on my saying before about The Great Gatsby remake coming out in 3D, WHY THAT MOVIE"
Why Not? You dont need to throw stuff at the audience to make a movie 3D, it could be just to make the film more realistic or just more interesting to the audience.

"3D won't have a future in the coming year, it costs too much and many directors don't even get the point of it anymore."
All unfactual opinions and misconceptions of reality by the Con

"3D use to be a fun thing to see, now it's just over used and annoying."
So even you admit that you were a fan of 3D movies

"many scientists have said 3D isn't good for you at all, even the new technology of seeing it without glasses just hurts your eyes and vision."
I dont know if you noticed (probably not since your blinded by your own ego) but regular movies cause headaches and hurts eyes and vision.... that happens no matter what movie you see in 2D or 3D... Hell people who watched the new twilight movie (which sucked d*ck) caused people to go into seizures and have to be hospitalized because apparently the birth scene used flashing strobe lights or something which completely freaked out the audience.

http://news.discovery.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://dlisted.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://blog.zap2it.com...
http://today.msnbc.msn.com...

So to summarize Con's arguments:
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
A concession that the Con was a fan of 3D movies
And a reference to how 3D can be bad to your health even though 2D movies can cause the same thing and even hospitalize people
Debate Round No. 3
PacemakerGuy

Con

This whole argument was never about 3D being banned or not being a fan of it. Last Round I said it use to be fun and now it's over used which is very true. Every title coming out has 3D over it now basically. I don't think 3D should be banned it should be controlled unlike having it over movies that don't need it such as "Beauty and the Beast, Green Lantern, Captain America and Titanic"
Here why 3D has no future http://technmarketing.com... not an opinion on my part
You didn't even do anything with my Star Wars comment just say Challenge Accepted, uh okay what did that do? Nothing
Plus I never said I was a FAN I said it USE TO BE FUN TO SEE...that's not a fan. That's like saying watching Baseball use to be fun, but I was never a fan of it.
Yes certain things in 2D can hurt your eyes but 3D is more likely to case eye damage. Anyone have the 3DS from Nintendo? People have had to stop using it cause it gave them headaches.
(Why would u even see Twilight? hahaha)

Even back to Titanic Leonardo refuses to promote Titanic 3D cause he even agrees it's just a money making scheme. http://perezhilton.com...
imabench

Pro

"This whole argument was never about 3D being banned or not being a fan of it"
Did you just concede the debate?

"You didn't even do anything with my Star Wars comment just say Challenge Accepted, uh okay what did that do? Nothing"
You think you know how everyone will perceive the movie because your ego is so massive you think you know everything, I said challenge accepted because now I will pay good money to go see Star Wars in 3D and see if its any different, which it probably will.

"I never said I was a FAN"
Was that before or after you said this,
"The one movie that it worked for was Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. It's best when they are FILMED IN 3D"

"Every title coming out has 3D over it now basically"
List of movies coming out that will not be in 3D,

The Hunger Games,
The Final Twilight film
The Grey
Man on a Ledge
One for the Money
The Woman in Black
Chronicle
Big Miracle
Safe House
This Means War
Ghost Rider 2
The Secret World of Arrietty
The Lorax
John Carter
Mirror Mirror
Wrath of the Titans
American Reunion
The Three Stooges
Scary Movie 5
A Thousand Words
Chimpanzee
Pirates! Band of Misfits
The Avengers
Battleship
Men in Black III
Prometheus
Brave
Abraham Lincoln Vampire Killer
G.I.Joe Retaliation
The Amazing Spider Man
Ice Age 5
The Dark Night Rises
The Bourne Legacy
Total Recall
Dog Fight
The Expendables 2
The Hobbit
Superman Man of Steel

So yeah, try to do some research.....

"Even back to Titanic Leonardo refuses to promote Titanic 3D cause he even agrees it's just a money making scheme."
Read your own article stupid, it says he doesnt want to promote it because he doesnt have to promote it since the movie can promote itself.....

"I said it USE TO BE FUN TO SEE...that's not a fan. That's like saying watching Baseball use to be fun, but I was never a fan of it."
If you think something is fun then you are probably a fan of it. If you liked something in the past then you were probably a fan of it in the past.....

"Yes certain things in 2D can hurt your eyes but 3D is more likely to case eye damage"
Do you have evidence to back this claim up or are you pulling this right out of your --- too?

"Here why 3D has no future http://technmarketing.com...... not an opinion on my part"
This comes from the same website that once claimed that EVERY human being should get a blog and that google+ will be a bigger hit than facebook...

http://technmarketing.com...
http://technmarketing.com...
Debate Round No. 4
PacemakerGuy

Con

I close this Debate saying that my opponent has pointed out many flaws in my argument. I still stand that 3D is just a greedy way for movies to pump out money of people. It will come to an end someday. Also it should only be meant for movies shot in 3D and not just thrown over for a rerelease or a random movie for more money.
Also he was wrong Ghost Rider 2 will be in 3D...you do some research.
That website can be right about somethings too.
This was fun!
imabench

Pro

So the Con has admitted that the only reason he is against 3D movies is because it is wrong for companies to make money....

"Also he was wrong Ghost Rider 2 will be in 3D...you do some research."
First of all Con, Ive done pretty of research showing how all of your claims, denunciations, and arguments against 3D movies were almost entirely false and based off your massive ego which is suffocating what is left of your ability to not misquote your own articles and arguments which only makes you look foolish. But to have the nerve (or lack of reason, whichever you prefer) to claim that I should do some research because I messed up one time on listing one of over a dozen movies completely falsifying your claim that 3D is taking over the movies when it actually is not is single-handedly the most contradictory thing you could ever say and single-handedly the stupidest thing you someone as trollish as you could do when voters are judging whose arguments and sources were superior in this debate.

I invite the Con to look back in his own arguments which he admits to being flawed and not based on sources and ask himself who he thinks needs to do a little more research in making his arguments....

Despite that sly little attack I thank the Con for a very interesting debate and the voters for reading
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sapiens 5 years ago
Sapiens
Exactly Oldfrith. Double the frame rate + the skill of jackson = a dream come true. One of these new 3D cameras in the right hands will produce magic.

Even in the trailer you can tell that some shots were created to only work in 3D.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
Wait until this kid sees "The Hobbit." We'll see if he hates 3D then.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by flash7221 5 years ago
flash7221
PacemakerGuyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: very close indeed. good debate guys, pro DID have resources though.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
PacemakerGuyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that he has flaws in his arguments. Pro was a d*ck with the opinion, opinion, spam. CON did not research the topic fully.