KalMart
239-Bean Irish Chili
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 16,733
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 58
Well most everyone here is pretty happy with his work, more or less.![]()
Yes, especially in the batsuit and Scarecrow discussion threads.


Well most everyone here is pretty happy with his work, more or less.![]()
He doesn't have to use the 3D technology during filming. Alice in Wonderland wasn't filmed in 3D, but it was edited to work with the technology.
Clash of the Titans' 3D is also reportedly garbage. Thanks Avatar.Alice's 3D was also garbage.
Up looked great in 3D.Clash of the Titans' 3D is also reportedly garbage. Thanks Avatar.
I've only seen three movies in 3D: Coraline, Up, and Avatar, all of which were very good visually. The former two weren't live action, and Avatar was natively filmed in 3D and was mostly computer-generated anyway, haha. So judging from that, I think you should only do 3D in live-action if it's shot in 3D. Studios AND audiences can save their money.
Alice's 3D was also garbage.
Clash's 3D is also reported garbage. The odds going for post-Avatar, post-processed 3D isn't looking very good right about now.Then I'd like to see the math equation that says that Batman 3 will in turn be garbage.
Clash's 3D is also reported garbage. The odds going for post-Avatar, post-processed 3D isn't looking very good right about now.
If the technology improves to the point where Chris Nolan can shoot live-action in 3D with the same quality as 35mm film (forget the post-process crap), I don't think he'll do it.
Well two separate AICN reviews mentioned how sometimes the hair would be on a completely different plane from the character's face, and how shapes would sometimes be very distorted in the 3D. I think that counts as garbage.I heard the opposite about Clash's 3D. I just heard the movie itself was garbage.
Besides, if this movie did go 3D, post-processed or not, I have no doubt in my mind Nolan will try to tell WB, "I'm going to do it." The man's demanded complete authority over his projects (and Batman) thus far, I don't see why he wouldn't put the same time and precision into that part as well.
Yes, especially in the batsuit and Scarecrow discussion threads.t:
![]()
Oh please. People need to grow up. You'll never satisfy everyone. People complain about comic interpretations. As long as the vast majority of people are satisfied ($1 billion says it is), then its gravy. You don't think so, go back and watch those Schumacher train wrecks!
Clash's 3D is also reported garbage. The odds going for post-Avatar, post-processed 3D isn't looking very good right about now.
If the technology improves to the point where Chris Nolan can shoot live-action in 3D with the same quality as 35mm film (forget the post-process crap), I don't think he'll do it.
I wasn't referring to box office, I was referring to how good the technology is at this point in time. If it looks like crap, Nolan won't use it. I think that's really the bottom line. I really don't see him selling out for some fad just because.A weekend estimate of $70 mil says otherwise. You think WB cares that there are plenty of reviews trashing this movie's 3D? The only thing they care about is whether the general audience shows up or not. And as of right now, they are showing up. So you can bet your ass WB will put just about every movie they release now through post-processing 3D. Dramas, comedies, romances, WB sees the green now. They won't care how shoddy it looks.
COTT needed to bomb and have the GA complain vociferously about the 3D for WB to even reconsider their misguided use of 3D. Reviews from sites such as AICN weren't going to get the job done. Unfortunately, with the way COTT is performing, the studio will only continue down this path.
It's not that it won't make the movie unrealistic, it's just not necessary to enjoy a movie, because it doesn't help with the story itself. And the problem with that is studios will spend money shooting movies in 3-D or converting them in post when they should have been spending money on better screenwriters, better directors, or better actors. I would have preferred seeing Avatar with better-written characters than having the 3-D option. But that's just me, and I apparently have higher standards than the general public.I don't get why everyone hates 3D so much. Of all the movies I've seen in 3D, it never really harms the actual film. And to whoever said, "the realistic style of Nolan's movies would be ruined by 3D," couldn't be more wrong. I don't think everyone gets it: we naturally see in 3 dimensions. That is what the human eyes produce. If anything, 3D technology helps a film and makes it even more real.
Should painters start painting in 3D as well?I don't get why everyone hates 3D so much. Of all the movies I've seen in 3D, it never really harms the actual film. And to whoever said, "the realistic style of Nolan's movies would be ruined by 3D," couldn't be more wrong. I don't think everyone gets it: we naturally see in 3 dimensions. That is what the human eyes produce. If anything, 3D technology helps a film and makes it even more real.
Should painters start painting in 3D as well?
It's not really like the 3D option is taking away resources from the other branches of production. They're all separate foundations hired specifically for a certain task. Avatar's story wasn't hurt because of 3D, that was all on Cameron.It's not that it won't make the movie unrealistic, it's just not necessary to enjoy a movie, because it doesn't help with the story itself. And the problem with that is studios will spend money shooting movies in 3-D or converting them in post when they should have been spending money on better screenwriters, better directors, or better actors. I would have preferred seeing Avatar with better-written characters than having the 3-D option. But that's just me, and I apparently have higher standards than the general public.![]()
We've been there for the past 2 decades. Where are you?3-D does not make a movie better, even though it ensures better box-office takes. It's analogous to Hollywood reverting to the dumb blockbuster formula. Who cares if it's good as long as it makes money, etc. Do we really want to go back to that?
Oh please. People need to grow up. You'll never satisfy everyone. People complain about comic interpretations. As long as the vast majority of people are satisfied ($1 billion says it is), then its gravy. You don't think so, go back and watch those Schumacher train wrecks!