|
Post by The Jester Of Tortuga on Sept 29, 2012 20:41:20 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on 3D?
Me personally, I own a 50 inch 3D tv so as you can imagine... I could care less. 3D looks great on games but movies more often than not I cant tell the difference. This is mainly because of them being converted and rather shit quality 3D. Very few films have actually blown me away with their 3D in fact the only one that comes to mind is The Lorax which had amazing 3D. Fright Night had some really good 3D, though it was only lil specks of vampire dust floating around. I think its a gimmic which will probably die out like the last time they tried it... and the time before that.... and the time before that...
|
|
|
Post by johnnyshitcase on Sept 29, 2012 20:54:16 GMT -5
Personally it does nothing for me. I have seen two films in 3D at the cinema and I kept taking my glasses off and looking at the screen normally and then again with the glasses on and I was thinking "What a fucking con this is". Most of the time it's no different. It's a gimmick. It was big in the '50's because TV became mainstream so they needed something to draw in crowds. It came back slightly in the '80's to draw crowds in due to the video industry becoming the new wave. And now in the last few years what with downloading stuff illegally and whatever else 3D is once again trying to draw in crowds. I have spoken to people who have seen 3D films and they all agree it does nothing at all, some people get headaches, and viewing 3D is more expensive (which is mental considering cinema's are struggling to get people in due to their ever-increasing prices). In short for me, it's bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by blizz4rd on Sept 30, 2012 3:51:52 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. John pretty much hit the nail on the head there. The last 3D-film I saw was "The Amazing Spider-Man"... well... in fact, I only saw the first 15 minutes or so in 3D, until I decided to take off those damn glasses and watch the film in 2D instead (the same goes for "The Avengers"). 3D does not enhance a film per se... it does not improve a sloppily written script... it does not cover up wooden performances by the actors... and most of the time, the people and objects of 'converted' 3D-films look like cheap cardboard cut-outs...
|
|
oceanmachine
Twat/Bint
On the way to a homemade wine Christmas
Posts: 40
|
Post by oceanmachine on Sept 30, 2012 5:36:15 GMT -5
Yeah, the new 3D wave is a reflux action to film piracy. It's just something that's showy and a way to draw people back to the cinema. People fall for these gullible tricks, because it gets hyped up. I've only, technically, seen two films with the new form of 3D, and one of them was a documentary on sharks at an Imax scree, so that doesn't fully count. I'd say that 3D does have its place in the world, but it isn't mainstream cinema. I do strongly advise going to see a 3D documentary at an Imax cinema, because they've been filmed with 3D in mind, and the big scale curved screen improves the experience. But as far as for films go, anything other than childrens CGI animation has the gimmick lost on it. I saw Avengers in 3D, and apart for maybe one or two parts, I was very disappointed in it. The unfortunate thing is that now that there is more of a gimmick associated with going to the cinema again, good films that rely on a strong plotline and cast of outstanding actors, rather than action and special effects, will get pushed to the side more
|
|
|
Post by blizz4rd on Sept 30, 2012 6:32:19 GMT -5
Truly, by early 2011 I was already fed up with this 3D-shit... man, was I happy when I learned that "X-Men: First Class" would be shown in 2D...
|
|
|
Post by mannie89 on Sept 30, 2012 10:16:49 GMT -5
It depends on the film really and how much the studio or whoever is willing to pay to get the specialized cameras.I think I remember reading that a cheap way of adding it was just through post production where they then process it into 3d.Anybody know what I'm talking about ? The link here reveals the cameras used in the film.Say what you want about transformers but they didn't go cheap when it came to filming in 3d. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon#Filming
|
|
|
Post by blizz4rd on Sept 30, 2012 11:49:11 GMT -5
Yup, I meant what you called 'processing into 3D' when I said that some films are converted to 3D... and, most of the time, conversion sucks, because it just looks cheap.
And yeah... the 3D-effects in Transformers 3 may have been quite good, but the film (and its two predecessors) were simply bullcrap, in my opinion. All those supposedly impressive transformations and, of course, the 3D-effects could not save it (which neatly connects to my post above). Nothing beats the real deal:
|
|
chipsandlicorice
Ultimate Ninja
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
Posts: 92
|
Post by chipsandlicorice on Sept 30, 2012 14:18:10 GMT -5
I always avoid 3D films when I go to the cinema opting for the 2D instead, I never got the appeal of it and in my opinion it is as much a money grabbing fad today as it was back in the 50's when 3D first emerged.
|
|
|
Post by mannie89 on Sept 30, 2012 15:26:29 GMT -5
I always avoid 3D films when I go to the cinema opting for the 2D instead, I never got the appeal of it and in my opinion it is as much a money grabbing fad today as it was back in the 50's when 3D first emerged. I agree with most of this except I won't go to a 3d film unless i have heard it uses it effectively or i take my spare 3d glasses and see a second film in theaters that uses it.
|
|
|
Post by The Jester Of Tortuga on Sept 30, 2012 18:16:53 GMT -5
Here we dont have any choice but to go to a 3D showing of a movie as they flat out wont play the 2D version. Cost of a 3D movie ticket here $26.
|
|
chipsandlicorice
Ultimate Ninja
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
Posts: 92
|
Post by chipsandlicorice on Sept 30, 2012 18:53:17 GMT -5
Here we dont have any choice but to go to a 3D showing of a movie as they flat out wont play the 2D version. Cost of a 3D movie ticket here $26. Christ!!!! I thought charging $14 for 3D where I am was outrageous. I hope you live close to a rental shop because that is the only way I'd see a movie lol. And who the hell decided to NOT play 2D films, you have my sypmathy.
|
|
|
Post by The Jester Of Tortuga on Sept 30, 2012 19:53:42 GMT -5
New Zealand is a complete shit hole mate.
Yeah I pretty much hire everything this year at the movies I have seen, The Avengers, Dark Knight Rises and Ice Age 4 at the movies and thats it. A few years ago on the other hand Id see a movie a week. I love it how when studios ask "Why do you pirate?" and people say "Cant afford to see them at the cinema." they just shrug it off as a bad excuse because its complete true.
|
|
|
Post by brian on Oct 1, 2012 20:26:04 GMT -5
I think 3d is fucking stupid. It was cool when I was 7 years old and saw 3d movies at Disneyworld. Now I think it's used to get the casual fan to go to the movies because they will think it's cool to see a movie in 3d. I lose respect for directors who do a lot of 3d. A while ago Ridley Scott said that he was gonna start doing all of his movies in 3d. I then said to myself "I guess I wont be seeing any more Ridley Scott movies".
|
|
chipsandlicorice
Ultimate Ninja
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
Posts: 92
|
Post by chipsandlicorice on Oct 1, 2012 20:50:51 GMT -5
I geuss another of my major issues with 3D is the fact that directors are re-releasing some of their films in 3D and what's worse, for example in the case of StarWars, how many times is Lucas gonna alter his films and get us to keep dishing out cash to go see them/ buy them. Also rumour has it that Jurassic Park is going to get the 3D make over in the spring of 2013.
|
|
|
Post by bobgrill on Oct 1, 2012 23:25:48 GMT -5
Also rumour has it that Jurassic Park is going to get the 3D make over in the spring of 2013. That is pretty much confirmed by now. I'd honestly rather just see it re-released in 2D again. It's one of my favorite childhood films, so... I have to see it. But I just don't know how good it will look in 3D.
|
|