3D Love it or Hate it

:confused:Im not sure how the film being 3D caused the film to be "dull and miserable"

Surely a good film is a good film, having an extra dimention added simply puts you more in the world than before, if that world is dull, then that is about the film not the format it is shown.
 
It's gimmicky bollocks, if this is the future of movies then i'll just not bother in future. I can see why people like James Cameron and George Lucas would like it though, they can hide the utter deficiencies in their movies with sparkly effects and 3D, I mean why bother with story and characters when the only thing you need to do to get the general public lapping it up is to make the thing 3D.

William Friedkin also thinks it's utter crap.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEhkemlm34Uqjq
 
i saw Jaws 3D when i was 5 and i loved it then. but i was 5, just to be fair.

my next film in 3d was Monsters V Aliens, some 27 years later - and i wasnt impressed at all. it offered nothing to the over all enjoyment of the film. and I vowed never to go to see 3D ever again.
But, if i go with frienRAB, they tend to prefer to see it in 3D, and i just like to chum them along.
THe only other film i watched out of my own interest was Avatar. and not too certain what that offered me.
I made a silly mistake of seeing Toy Story 3 just last week in 3d - again, it offered nothing to my enjoyment of the film. except 1.80 on top of the Unlimited Card.
its a gimmick and a load of bollocks.
i only say that is not the case to films that are actually filmed in 3d, rather then rendered, like EVEYTHING apart from Avatar and the exception of a few others.

Bring back Jaws 3D i saw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Technology is just not cheap enough to do it effectively. I don't know about anyone else but I find that the glasses reduce the brightness by around 25% and during high contrast scenes there is "bleed" of the left image into the right eye and vice versa. Using an active system rather than the current, passive method would work but passive is cheap. It's the obvious choice to get bums on seats as the average punter is just not going to stump up for an active set of glasses.

Even if the technicalities are ironed out directors need to use it effectively. Anything that leaps out at you (I'm looking at you TOO Mr. Cameron.) distracts and ruins any involvement you had before your reaction took place. The most effective scenes I've in 3D have treated the screen as a stage, giving it depth and not showboating.

I've also heard terrible reports about light flicker and domestic 3D systems. If light does influence the performance all that leaves is people that will sit in the dark to watch a film and that's not average joe. Even though I fall into the group that may tailor my environment to my viewing I can see the writing on the wall and will not be investing.

I think we're all being sold a pup and this isn't the only debate I've seen online in recent weeks. I wish I could find the link but takings are apparently down, the fad is over.
 
I have just seen alice in Wonderland in 3D , Firstly it wasnt true 3D like you get at theme parks (Anyone who has Watched Pirates 4D and honey I shrunk the audience rides would know what I mean) the best way I can describe it, is like looking at a stage with transparent curtains in front of it. the rear wall of the stage is the background and the curtains at the front of the stage is the foreground with no depth in the middle. this doesnt create an popping out of the screen image and this is disappointing just an image with a lot of depth.

3D neeRAB new shot conventions to truly take advantage of it rather than just existing 2D films being shot with 3D cameras.
 
Thats spot on! on viewing 3d films i come out of cinema feeling dizzy ...its not natural...i feel itll be a faze untill the next thing comes along !
 
Well it is exactly the same system, so I am not sure what is untrue about it



'Theme park' 3D normally has an exaggerated 3D effect.

Whether that is 'taking advantage' of it, or distorting it is perhaps a matter of taste, or what the the director sought to achieve.

Cameron set out to avoid in Avatar the exaggerated 3D effects that you typically see in 'theme park' 3D and went for depth and a more realistic effect.

Whilst that worked well IMO, I will also agree with some of the posters that 3D can however have an adverse affect on the PQ in other ways. So the gains from 3D realisms leaRAB to losses elsewhere.

Neither conventional 2D or new 3D are truely 'realistic'. 2D never can be, but 3D shows more promise in the long term if they can get past its shortcomings.
 
HATE it. Why must every film these days be ruined by the new fad?! Sick of it, I really hate wearing those stupid uncomfortable glasses, which always leave a big red mark on your nose.

Horrible, nasty experience. Completely ruins my enjoyment of a film.
 
The first time I got to experience this new wave of 3D (let's be honest, it's been done before) was to see Avatar and I was bored of it after 20 minutes. The film itself proved to be a bit naff as well. To me this whole 3D thing is just a fad, a gimmick. Nothing more, and the worse thing is I don't see it disappearing again any time soon
 
Not a fan of 3D myself. I don't hate it, I'm just not interested.

But I don't like the way movies are being made or remade in 3D purely to cash in on the craze.
 
I've posted in ths thread before but 3D is doing my head in.

When I seen Alice In Wonderland (shit film, bad 3D) all I could hear when leaving was comments on the 3D and not the film.

It's completely distracting and I'd imagine it's a factor why people go and see a film in the first place.

I seen Streetdance 3D which was absolutely terrible and had no reason whatsoever to be in 3D... now there's another dance film coming out in 3D :rolleyes:

I think 3D should be saved for horror (more effective having things jump out at you), animation (because it works better with animation) and some fantasy. Everything else should be left alone.

The tag "3D" is just stuck on the end of films now. Trailers go through all the spiel and then add "in 3D" at the end.

I hope it passes soon. 3D TV is not going to take off like people are predicting, either.
 
Well if people desire more 'realism' in films, then 3D must be part of that.

You don't go to a live event do you and sit there wishing it was in 2D?

I will agree though that current 3D technology is far from perfect. It can add something through the extra dimension, but at the same time take it away due to a poorer overal PQ, IMO.
 
I personally enjoy the 3D films and I like the things flying at me, it does work really well for horror and animation. Films are meant to entertain you, or scare you, so what better way to do it than by having something jump out the screen? I especially liked My Bloody Valentine in 3D, I saw it in 2D as well - got re released at my cinema when they installed 3D. I did enjoy it more in 3D as that's what it was designed for.

I agree that some films don't necessarily need 3D, like I saw Toy Story 3 yesterday and half way in I realised 'oh yeah i'm watching it in 3D'. Toy Story really didn't need the 3D - although I did enjoy it on the big Xtreme screen at Vue. Same with a few other films, they don't all need 3D.
 
Directors have to get used to using it properly. Which really means not doing anything special with it. Avatar came close but even it had things popping out the scene.

I don't agree with the William Friedkin comments quoted above. Whether you have 3D does not affect whether your actors are any good. The way to think about it is the way you think about sound. You can have a good film with just a single speaker, but going to 5.1 or 7.1 enhances the experience. Similarly having 3D makes the visuals more vivid. That's all, but it's enough.

Audiences have to get used to it too. If you watch enough of it I expect the focussing problem will go away as your brain will learn how the new medium works.
 
I have no problems myself with 3D apart from the extra cost to watch 3D films!

However it seems that 3D will be around for a while according to this report from Movie Hole about 2 films due for release in 2011 to be in 3D:

"Warner Bros has announced plans to release both "Green Lantern" and "Sucker Punch" in - groan - 3D.

After the success of "Avatar", the Burbank shingle has become frequently more interested in utilizing the technology. They converted "Clash of the Titans" to 3-D after the film had wrapped, as they did "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows : Part 1".

"Sucker Punch", an action fantasy by Zack Snyder ("Watchmen") starring Abbie Cornish and Vanessa Hudgens, is due for release in March of 2011. "Green Lantern", directed by Martin Campbell and starring Ryan ReynolRAB as the emerald avenger, is in theatres that July."

Also from what ive read as well there are plans for Transformers 3 to be in 3D as well!
 
Back
Top