3D overrated?

D

dancerchickayana

New member
I just came back form seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D and I wasn't very impressed. The only time I really noticed the 3D effect was when people were standing against a background or when writing was on the screen. I forgot I was watching a 3D film after a while, it also looked kinda blurry in some places which was annoying. For the price you pay for the ticket + glasses you expect more, it seemed that the 3D effect was only added later as a way for the studio to make more money.
 
Is 3D overrated...in a word......Yes.....and I`am sick to death of it....For better or worse I`am old enough to remember the doomed attempts to entice us to embrace 3D in the 1970`s/80`s and 90`s

I just don`t see the point of 3D....Some would argue that state of the art equipment and digital technology herald a new era in 3D......again I`am old enough to have heard that one before......and if it`s true that the process results in an unavoidable 30% colour loss then were not there yet.
3D is a marketing gimmick......it always has been.....although I grant you it appears to be a very successful one this time around.....but for how long??
 
Avatar was alright, but now I've seen a 3D film, I don't particularly want to see another, until they can do proper 3D where you don't see the obvious barriers of the screen on anything that jumps out at you.

Holographic 3D or nothing for me. So nothing, for now. I hope 3D TVs don't become poplular, and I guess they won't since loaRAB of people will have recently upgraded to HDTVs so won't buy another so soon.

I suppose the fad will be over soon enough and come round again in another 20 years.
 
3D is overrated, but dont base that opinion on Clash of the Titans. Clash was a shameless 3D cash in. The 3D wasnt added until late in post production and it has little to no effect at all.
 
I though Avatar used it brilliantly; and it really pushed the limits of what can be done. At several points in the film I felt that if i reached out I would be able to touch the items on screen; and I;m not just talking about the floating ash or tiny creatures of Pandora. Some of the more reality-grounded scenes in the military base were as convincing if not more so in their use of 3D than some Padora scenes.

However, Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans were both disappointing for me - by and large I thought that everything was flat, but staggered, so we had Alice and the Mad Hatter (flat) a few feet in front of a few trees (flat) a few feet in front of some other things (again, flat). It wasn't the immersive expereince that Avatar was; I think that Alice and Clash were both filmed in 2D and then converted into 3D and I didn't really see the benefit in this.

However, I won't totally write-off D just yet. I think Tin Tin is being shot using the same equipment as Avatar and so I will be very interested to see how that turns out. I just think at the moment it might be too expensive to do 3D to the standard Cameron pioneered for all films, but with time this will become more routine.

I still dream of the day when it's proper holographic 3D though like the recordings seen throughout Star Wars, such as when the Jedi communicate with one another or when R2D2 plays the messge from Leia in A New Hope.
 
One of the problems is that films being made in 3D (or converted to it) are going to have to be quality films or pretty soon it'll be too closely associated with trash, which would probably lead to yet another early death of this particular medium. And it's not too difficult to see the awful likes of Clash of the Titans being the first nail in the coffin.
 
Only one more 3D film now until the Summer.

To be fair, any post-production 3D live action film is a poor use of the technology at the moment. And Clash of the Titans was particularly poor.

Animation/CGI and steroscopic live action 3D work much, much better. Avatar and Up being excellent examples of the former, and U2 3D of the latter.
 
Well 3D is a con on Clash of the Titans - they shot it in 2D but when Avatar was such a success - they used a Post Production process to create the 3d effect. Basically it splits the picture into layers each one being further from you - but each thing in any given layer is flat.

The 3d for Avatar was based on proper 3d cameras which have two lenses (one for each eye) - so what you do is get real 3d.

Having said that I'm not that convinced with 3d while we still need glasses - and even I had the money I almost certainly am not going to replace my TV for a 3d one - as well as my Blu-Ray player.

I'm not bothered either about getting Avatar in a 3d version - been there, got the T-shirt. Will watch it in a couple of weeks on Blu-Ray and enjoy it for the hokum it is.
 
The thing is 3D technology is still developing. Watching 3D without glasses is years away. So for now 3D done 'properly' like Avatar is decent enough. For me anyway. 3D technology is here to stay now unlike the it's first attempt where it came then died away.
 
This is the first time we've had full colour, full-length 3D films, with virtually no compromises on type of content (save for the dreaded post-production processing of 2D source material).
 
Back
Top