Stomski
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
YOU INTERRUPTED MY SPEECH!! But don't worry. It won't happen again.
Posts: 6,121
|
Post by Stomski on Dec 27, 2011 12:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 27, 2011 13:16:19 GMT
begun? It's been going on for ages.....
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Dec 27, 2011 13:16:43 GMT
All that proves is that people won't see any old rubbish just because it's in 3D. That was back in March anyway. And Mars Needs Moms was by all accounts an awful awful film which should never have been made, from the creepy motion capture animation to the dreadful 'moral' (The only proper way to raise a child is in the traditional family unit of one mother and one father, anything else means you are a terrible parent) As long as they can make it cost effective I can see studios keeping on with them - after all, 3D films cost more to watch! |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Dec 27, 2011 13:25:19 GMT
Mark Kermode has been spearheading that movement since the get go!
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Dec 27, 2011 14:34:10 GMT
No problem with 3D when done properly, but in most cases it isn't. The price hike I am against, after the initial installation of 3D projectors is there actually any additional costs to justify it?
Toy Story 3 and Avatar and apparently Hugo are all good 3D films, but there are far too many hastily done conversions.
There has been a huge drop in 3D audiences this year so hopefully Hollywood is getting the message.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 27, 2011 16:08:31 GMT
Er, that was April. -Ralph |
|
Stomski
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
YOU INTERRUPTED MY SPEECH!! But don't worry. It won't happen again.
Posts: 6,121
|
Post by Stomski on Jan 3, 2012 16:52:48 GMT
Evidentially I don't read the dates on articles that people randomly point me at. Ha!
Uhh - Avatar good 3D? Look at the part where the military folk are leaving the ship at the start. They look all flat. Last time I checked, people existed in more than 2 dimensions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Nov 29, 2012 22:09:42 GMT
Can't stand the 3D fad, and can't wait until it's over.
I require glasses to see, and they've yet to make 3D glasses that can be worn comfortably by those requiring corrective lenses. They force the 3D glasses to be too far away from the eye to make it work right. If something on screen is "too close," or "too far" then it separates into duel images, or just goes blurry. And I usually have a headache after it's over. Strike one.
My perscription pretty much destroys depth perception. So the "3D Experience" that's supossed to make things "come to life!" only feels forced, weird, and unnatural to me. Strike two.
It costs more than the already overpriced movies are to begin with. Strike three.
So far, only two movies have impressed me, in 3D, and made me glad I spent the extra money.
Tangled (The lantern scene was amazing), and Green Lantern (Likewise with the Oa scenes).
Brave came close. But 3D didn't really add much, but then Pixar films are already so realized to begin with.
Even Avatar fell flat, after being hyped as being so revolutionary. (I'll give Avatar credit, it pretty much forced the genre to do away with the godaweful "Jump out of the screen!" gimmicks, and focused more on true depth, which maked 3D a lot more tolorable.)
Every few decades this dumb 3D craze rears it's head. I think it's almost finished this time (The TV and DVD side of it is already dead). Maybe next time they can fix it needing glasses. THEN I'll give it a fair chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 29, 2012 22:18:42 GMT
And 3D only works for spectacle. Does anyone want to see, say, brutal crime dramas in 3D? No. Or comedies? No.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Nov 29, 2012 22:26:46 GMT
Not to mention it's a one time thing. When they cater to the 3D gimmicks, and make the "jump out atcha" stuff, all that falls completely flat once it's left the theaters, and you're watching it on HBO, or DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc Graham on Nov 30, 2012 8:16:40 GMT
Best 3d experience is the Muppets at Disneyworld.
FACT!
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Nov 30, 2012 22:04:33 GMT
I'm anti-3D because it means I am disqualified, or practically so from seeing some films. Hello Dredd - Sorry about that, I'd have saddled up and rode with you but it was literally impossible.
I'm also anti-3D because it mostly seems to be a gimmick that doesn't make films any better, and often makes them actively worse. Although sometimes there is nothing so hilarious as seeing a scene that has clearly been blocked for the "It is coming right at you" effect. One of the sequences from the most recent Resident Evil film is in the "autumn at the movies" trailer in Cineworld and it makes me snort derisively every time.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Nov 30, 2012 23:27:58 GMT
The only 3D film I saw was Transformers 3; the 3D made me feel a bit nauseous at the start, but after about 20 mins when I got acclimatised, I pretty much didn't notice it at all! Which probably renders it pointless. Not a dealbreaker to me, but nothing that I'd go out of my way to experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 1, 2012 10:30:31 GMT
The human eye takes around 20 mins to be fully used to 3D, which is why you stopped noticing the effect after a while.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Dec 1, 2012 12:01:26 GMT
The human eye takes around 20 mins to be fully used to 3D, which is why you stopped noticing the effect after a while. -Ralph Hurray I'm normal |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 1, 2012 14:33:54 GMT
Indeed.
Actually, I'd be fine with 3D existing. It's a choice and some folk like it, but it increasingly annoys me when distributors push the 3D version over the 2D version resulting in either very limited 2D showings at odd times or sometimes no 2D showings at all. It doesn't make me go 'sod it' and just go see the 3D version. I tend not to bother seeing it at all and see another film instead. Similarly, I have decided not to see films which shout 'IT'S IN THREEEE-DDDDDDD!' (extensively, not when it's just a wee mention at the end of a trailer) in the ads even if there is a 2D version. It tells me your film has no merit beyond a gimmick. The message being sent to me is that your film can't be very good if you only want people to see the 3D version of it as to make the most money it makes sense to have equal showings of both (to cater for all audiences).
By all means have 3D, but don't ignore the much larger audience who want 2D.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Dec 1, 2012 19:42:16 GMT
While I can't speak for over there, but I believe the crowd over here who doesn't like 3D is, or at least for a long stretch are the minority.
The only thing that makes me think otherwise is 3D isn;t being pushed nearly as hard, and it's getting slightly easier to see a 2D version.
Although, with friends or family, I'm personally stuck with 3D. Everyone I know... everyone I know personally chides me and tells me I'm being rediculous. And that my glasses have no negative effect on my 3D viewing experience. (How would *they* know what I do or do not perceive?)
That said, I do plan on seeing the Hobbit in 3D. The scenescapes could be pretty epic.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 1, 2012 20:17:19 GMT
For those interested in percentage of grosses for 3d films check boxofficemojo.com. They also report how many theatres show 3d compared to 2d. Generally, the 3d gross share is only above 50% if a film is mostly showing only in 3d.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Dec 10, 2012 13:42:16 GMT
3D does nothing for me!
Seriously, I freakin' hate it. Not seen nawt that looked better with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 25, 2012 8:42:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Dec 25, 2012 15:21:17 GMT
I disagree with this hugely. Whether it's 2D, 3D, or comic/text... a well written character is a well written character, and will always be engaging. Medium doesn't effect that what so ever.
Although, the 3D does remind me constantly I'm watching a film, and usually does take me out of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 27, 2012 20:56:17 GMT
If the method of presentation interferes with the telling of a story then yes it can be rather hard to engage with the characters.
-Ralph
|
|
