General Question

MrItty's avatar

Is it worth the additional $3.50 to see Up in 3D?

Asked by MrItty (17406points) June 1st, 2009

Some movies are GREAT in 3D, like Meet the Robinsons. Others, like Journey to the Center of the Earth, are just godawful. Where do you think Up falls in this category?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Reviews say the film is great and Pixar never does anything half-assed.
I’d say go for it.

dynamicduo's avatar

Yes it is. It was a great 3D experience. There are certain scenes where they’re flying in the sky where the 3D is just drop dead gorgeous, and the opening short film is also wonderful with the 3Dness.

TheCreative's avatar

I don’t think i’ve seen a movie with a 10/10 rating. It must be good. I’m going to check it out this weekend so NO SPOILERS!

dynamicduo's avatar

I would say it’s one of Pixar’s best movies ever.

_bob's avatar

Gee, I don’t know, $3.50… that’s quite an investment there :P

Seriously, though, yeah, I’d go for it.

dynamicduo's avatar

You can jack the polarized glasses if it makes you feel like you gain more value :)

chelseababyy's avatar

I saw it. It was really really cute. However my boyfriend was disappointed at lack of 3D (things flying at you, and that sort of thing). But I still thought is was great. So I’d say yes, go for it!

chelseababyy's avatar

@dynamicduo Wasn’t the little pixar short at the beginning just so cute?

dynamicduo's avatar

@chelseababyy It was yet another example of Pixar’s wonderful wordless storytelling, and I like the way the clouds were incorporated in the intro of the movie itself. I always arrive to the movie early so that I don’t miss the short one bit.

Fred931's avatar

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

syz's avatar

I saw it in 2-D and loved it – I suspect I would enjoy the 3-D experience, but not having it certainly doesn’t detract.

EmpressPixie's avatar

It was great in 3-D. I don’t think it was completely necessary for the experience BUT the 3-D was finely calibrated such that it didn’t bother my head at all (a first) and certainly added to the experience in a very nice way. I thought the movie was incredibly touching and I think it would have been less so, still very good and still very watchable, but less involving in 2-D.

robmandu's avatar

I saw Bolt in 3D. It was a Disney film, but not Pixar.

I found the entire 3D bit to be distracting and cumbersome. I also cannot stand it when the movies goes out of its way to get “in” your face.

I intend to catch Up in 2D.

hearkat's avatar

I saw it in 3-D yesterday and the little kid behind us kept whining that he couldn’t see the 3-D. This is because, as @chelseababyy said, it wasn’t over-the-top 3-D for 3-Ds sake, it was subtle to add depth and realism to the scenes. Definitely worth it.

Lightlyseared's avatar

probably not – it’s just an excuse by the studios to make films harder to pirate.

MrItty's avatar

Just got back. Incredible movie. There was certainly no 3D for 3D’s sake, which is a positive in my book. Pixar is 10 for 10.

MrItty's avatar

@Lightlyseared given that the movie was released in both 2D and 3D, that answer is not only bitter, but completely nonsensical.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther