3D Movies ... Please no!

J

jamesrcdude14

New member
Went to watch Avatar the other day. The film was ok but it's not a film I'd rush to watch again. The main problem was that wearing the glasses and watching the film made my eyes feel strained and tired which wasn't a pleasant experience. Also it cost a lot more to watch it in 3D. Can't say I'll be rushing to the cinema to watch more 3D offerings - think I'd rather steer clear.
 
I don't know if I really want to watch films in 3D. Not because I don't like it, but because to me it just doesn't matter. I suppose my problem is that any 3D I've seen hasn't been very good quality and it didn't work very well. (It just looked like one part stuck out, like scenery in a play)
On an unrelated note, AWESOME-O, your username made me chuckle! I keep imagining Butters singing " my robot friend"!
 
Awww, shame. You deleted it again.

Get told off again, did we?

Man, you just will not learn...
 
3D died out in the past because it was largely a fad.

You normally found every decade or so there was a resurgence of 3D movies, and then all of a sudden 10 of them would come out at once...then people would tire of them and they would stop making them.

And this was because primarily the older 3D movies were built around the 3D process itself, therefore it was important that every few moments something was either thrown or thrust towarRAB the camera. Story, acting etc was usually secondary.

I think we need to get away from that old style of 3D, and move towarRAB a less intrusive 3D' depth' style. Not so much throwing things at the camera, more creating the illusion of depth on the screen.

That technique could enhance a movie, without being too intrusive.
 
Seen a few films in 3D.. one of them was the latest Final Destination film. There's a bit in it where one of the girls is wandering round in her underwear in the foreground and she has her back to you.. her ass came right out at you :o everybody was laughing their heaRAB off

Prepared to pay extra every now and again for a 3D film but wouldn't want to do it all the time.
 
Now it seems that the final Harry Potter films are to be released in 3D. Why? The previous films have been flawed but enjoyable but at no time did I think that what the films needed was to be in 3D.

But then I guess its all about money. Having split the final film into two to double profits the studio now expects everyone to pay for 2 pairs of 3D glasses.
 
Lets put it this why, would The Godfather be any better in 3D no!

Avatar was just a demo of what 3D would be like, it was a great show but would not want every film to be in 3D.
 
I recently saw both Avatar and A Christmas Carol in 3D (the first in IMAX as well) and I have formed the view that it is being used as an excuse to squeeze more money out of us. Apparently Avatar is now the biggest-grossing movie of all time. In just one month! That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the ticket prices at the 3D/IMAX screenings, could it?

From a creative point of view, I don't object to it. There were moments in both films that would have looked much less impressive in 2D - but there were plenty more where it made next to no difference at all. One thing I did notice, however, was that the polarising lenses used in the glasses are dark grey in colour and they dim the image that you see quite considerably. You get used to it, of course, and the movie compensates by making the unfiltered image overly bright, but even so they can be tiring to wear and I don't look forward to having to don a pair whenever I go to the cinema. Even less do I look forward to 3D television. Imagine having your viewing ruined because the dog ate the specs!
 
The biggest problem I have with 3D, isn't the technique itself. It's good and I really enjoyed Avatar on it. The biggest problem is '3D headache'. A substanial number of people are reporting that after seeing a 3d film they feel slighly nauseous, or have a headache. This apparently is because the brain has to adapt to interpreting sight a way it isn't used to.

I've seen forum posts, blogs and mainstream articles in the press all talking about '3D headaches'.

Anyways I don't think 3D will be the norm, it is simply in vogue at the minute and has the midas touch. All that will happen is that in a few months a big budget 3D movie will flop or doing dissapointingly at the box office, then Variety magazine will do a bit about how the '3D boom is going bust', and Hollywood will panic and push the abort button on 3D.
 
many people seem to and get satisfactory results,i suppose if all this 3D truly does take off its only a matter of time till the likes of Real D come up with 3D Glasses for Spectacle wearers
 
Not really (although I suppose it depenRAB on the type of film an quality of the 3D).

Computer generated films must be fairly cheap to convert as the characters and models are all built in three dimensions anyway..so almost everything needed is already there without the need for expensive cameras.

On the live action side of things, it seems to be horror/slasher movies that have used 3D most...and they are not known for their massive budgets.

Considering the costs of your average summer blockbuster and the fees the big actors command..the costs of 3d are a drop in the ocean.
 
And also the remake of Clash of the Titans. They will also release the normal 2D versions I am sure. I saw Order of the Phoenix in 3D at Imax but was disappointed that only a small segment of the film was in 3D. So I for one am happy about this.
 
Actually, I don't think anyone at this stage can foresee what the long-term future holRAB for 3D. It's been a recent success and this will lead to more films utilising the process, but no-one knows whether it will retain the 'wow' factor and whether audiences will eventually tire of it.
 
Is Avatar any good? I want to see it but I watched the trailer and it didn't make me interested. Is it a must see or a 'no point' ?
 
Back
Top