3D Movies ... Please no!

3D often distracts the audience from the actual content of the film. It did with me at points. I was thinking "that looks good" rather than "this is a good film".
 
I don't understand why the studios are rushing to transfer already made films into 3D before they're released.

Surely a film has to be intended to be in 3D and shot in 3D for it to be proper 3D?
 
As a matter of technology, I am pretty confident that within 5 years it will be as cheap to make a good 3D TV as a good 2D one, and therefore 3D TVs will become as ubiquitous as HD ones are now. It's all rolling forward and it's hard to see anything stopping that.

It won't be about audience demand. Making a TV without 3D will be like making one without teletext. It doesn't matter much how many people actually use teletext (and personally I prefer the internet). The economics means you can't buy a TV without it now.
 
Not really, most 3D movies (the ones with extra depth of field rather than stuff flying out at you) are just 2D movies put through a post-processing system on a PC (or a very big PC as the case may be)
 
Saw Avatar the other day and thought it was mind blowingly, stunningly, brilliant !!! I absolutely loved it. I would certainly watch it again, and again, and again. It amazes me how someone can think up something like that.


I'm a big fan of 3D, having grown up with the little red and green 3D glasses that were (to me) totally useless. I always felt that I was missing out on something that everybody else could see. Then I went to see Up and it blew me away, we also had an excerpt of Christmas Carol, which we later went to see, and a snowflake actually floated towarRAB me in the cinema :eek::eek::eek: amazing !!:D:D
 
I don't like how the cinema's charge extra for 3d movies it dosen't matter so much if they're infrequent but they seem to be getting more frequent and because of the sucess of Avatar more movies like the new Harry Potter movie and Clash Of The Titans are being redone in 3d
 
Saw Avatar 3d yesterday and thought the 3d effect was pretty good. I don't really understand the technology but I suspect the 3d system works best with CGI generated material - not sure what 3d would bring to a Ken Loach film?
Depressing thing was trailers for two upcoming 3d stinkers... some turdy pirhana shocker and some sort of big-screen "Britain's got street dancers" atrocity.
All in all I think there's a place for 3d for the odd blockbuster sci-fi film whereby the 3d is an intrisic part of the whole thing. However, just clunkily bolting on 3d to any old tosh is just a gimmick.
 
Isn't that largely due to it not being the norm?

I'm sure the first time a black and white film was shown, people were paying as much attention to technological side of things as they were the actual story..

...I'm sure when they moved to colour people were distracted by that. When I first watched a film on a HD set I was paying as much attention to the extra visual detail as anything else.

The more common place 3D is..the less distracted people will be.
 
What about the poor folks like me who can't see 3D films because of eye problems. :(

I certainly hope 3D isn't going to become the standard. I refuse(!! :p) to buy a pair of 3D glasses just to be able to view a film in 2D, which is all a pair of 3D glasses does to me.
 
I've seen alot of the recent 3D films, as amost of them are aimed at my sons age range: Bolt, Monsters Vs aliens, Ice Age 3, Up,Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Avatar and Toy Story 2 3D. I've also seen a lot of those films in 2D at kiRAB matinees or on Blu-ray. I've enjoyed the films in both versions, although the obvious 'throw something out the screen' 3d shots look a bit daft in 2D.

The one disappointment I've had was Toy Story 2 3D where it was blatently obvious it had been forced into an older film.

The main issues others have thrown at 3D: wearing glasses, dulled colours and headaches...... I've honestly never experienced any problems (the colours in Avatar & Meatballs were still stunning).

Overall i like 3D but i think it has its place, I wouldnt want it in every movie (Harry Potter etc should left alone).
 
I hadn't heard that, and I'm absolutely delighted at that news!

3D really is a complete crock IMHO, certainly not even close to being the "next big thing" in film making, the fact that it results in a 30% colour loss (THIRTY PERCENT!) is absolutely criminal when watching the likes of UP and the forthcoming "Alice" film.

I'm sure the studios would have been pushing Jackson and Del Toro to shoehorn The Hobbit into 3D, but thank god they're proper film makers!
 
3D is in one respect a gimmick, BUT the studios desperately want it to succeed as it makes pirating films with smuggled in video cams pretty much impossible.
 
The thing with 3D is that it's meant to be more realistic - but in truth it's just different. It falsely removes certain parts of the scene and promotes them forward of the general image. It's an interesting effect but it certainly isn't how you'd have seen the scene were you there watching with your own eyes.

I don't object to 3D, but I don't think it makes a film better, just different, and a bit of a novelty. I think I'd have enjoyed Avatar just as much in 2D, to be honest.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
i loved my bloody vlentine the 1st time i watched it best slasher iv seen in years i watched it at home on my 2d tv with my 2d dvd verison

my frienRAB said ah you wont like it you need to see it in 3d :rolleyes:

then i got a lend of the 3d one and really didt think much more of it.
it was a well made movie.

seen FINAL 4 and thought it was pants!
 
3D movies are being really poor from out of the ones I have see. Only Avatar has really taken full of advantage. God knows why movies like Ice Age 3 and FD 4 were in 3d. There no reason for them to be.
 
If you watched it on DVD or Bluray, then it was the crappy old 3d system from the 1950s, NOTHING looks good using that old system, it just gives me a sore head.

New stuff in the cinema in 3d, uses the new polarising lens technology, which is 10000% better.
 
I recently worked on a depth effect without the need for 3D glasses.

Notice the enhanced depth between the people in the car (Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler) and the background. You should be able to see it with the van too as the guy fires the gun. The 4 to 6 second mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMSt0kSzBxs

When Butler says "the only person around here who wants to kill you is me" - you should see greater depth between him and Aniston, and Aniston and the background.

The effect doesn't seem so striking on certain films which is a shame because it's limited its potential. However, given the right film and some other technical details which I won't bore people with, I believe it's possible to create the illusion of extra depth within a 2D image.:) That clip is probably the best example of the effect so if you can't see any difference, just lie and say "wow - look at that depth!"

I mantain that is greater depth, so I believe it's possible. I don't think I'm making it up!

But as I say, it doesn't work with every film and it's a subtle difference, it's hardly stuff coming out of the screen and touching you! Back to the drawing board...

The success of Avatar proves people will see films in 3D although I think the advanced CGI was the main reason for the film's success.
 
Back
Top