The Amazing Spider-Man I don't want the new Spider-Man film to be in 3D

[ross2287]

Seriously, everything doesn't have to be in 3D.

Granted, there will still be the 2D print (which I'll see) and granted seeing Spidey swing into the audience in 3D could be cool, but it's unnecessary.

And I know all the pro-3D people will be on me about it, but pretty much for every pro-3D there's at least one anti-3D.

So, who's with me?

 

[Crook]

I will never get the b***hing against 3D so as long as a 2D print exists, and the extra money spent on it isn't from your pocket.

Honestly, what is the big deal here? I want to understand.

 

[ross2287]

Seems too bandwagony/gimmicky to me.

 

[Jick]

Is the 3D going to damage the movie in any way?

I'm not pro 3D, nor am I anti. I'll simply choose one of these two options and watch it.
I want someone to give me good reasons to change my mind because ''it is too gimmick'' is all I hear.

 

[Deaths Head II]

Seriously, why does it matter at all? As long as the 2D print exists, it doesn't affect anything.

 

[Indie]

Seriously, why does it matter at all? As long as the 2D print exists, it doesn't affect anything.

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

 

[Rodrigo90]

3D is crap IMO.

 

[Indie]

3D is crap IMO.

I'm not quite ready to write 3D off all together, I just think it's hard to make it enhance the film and not detract from it.

 

[Deaths Head II]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

I doubt they'll be doing that for gimmick's sake.

 

[Spider-Who?]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

See, this is a ridiculous statement because it is a STAPLE cinematic shot to have things come at the camera, regardless of 3d being involved. I dare you to watch any of the Spider-Man flicks and not see at least one instance of this happening in any fight scene. And guess what? It happened with no 3d involved. So to be okay with it when its in 2d, but suddenly throw arms up in disgust if the SAME thing where to happen in 3d is hypocritical and lacks a whole lot of logic.

And personally, I couldnt care less if it where in 3D. I'm fine either way. The 3d technology has evolved far enough where serious film makers who want to use it don't have to worry about slamming it down our throats; they're (for the most part) aware that it is a tool just like any other.

 

[spider-neil]

there will always be a 2D print so its not worth worrying about

 

[weezerspider]

Well, its a waste of time and money if its not really enhancing the movie, so I'll complain until I'm proven otherwise.

 

[MrSpyder]

I'll wait and see no doubt

 

[White_Knight191]

Guys, what's the big deal about this? Go see the 2D version then... god...
Now I'm actually curious how they are gonna pull this off with the ''rumored'' 80 million budget...

 

[spider-neil]

if it isin 3D I hope they rent the fusion camera of james cameron. 3D looks rubbish otherwise.

I can understand the studios push for 3D they want a peice of avatar's pie but I don't think the reason avatar was so successful was the 3D.

 

[Spider-Ranger]

Does this mean the whole movie will be in 3D like "Avatar"??
Or some parts of it?? when spidey is webslinging e.g.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Every movie, save Avatar, that's been in 3-D has done it as nothing more than a mere gimmick.

 

[dark_b]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

but this is the directors fault.

this is a good reason to not like 3D. but its something that the director can fix if he doesnt use the gimmicky shots. so why not be afraid that the director will f... this up?

 

[dark_b]

See, this is a ridiculous statement because it is a STAPLE cinematic shot to have things come at the camera, regardless of 3d being involved. I dare you to watch any of the Spider-Man flicks and not see at least one instance of this happening in any fight scene. And guess what? It happened with no 3d involved. So to be okay with it when its in 2d, but suddenly throw arms up in disgust if the SAME thing where to happen in 3d is hypocritical and lacks a whole lot of logic.

And personally, I couldnt care less if it where in 3D. I'm fine either way. The 3d technology has evolved far enough where serious film makers who want to use it don't have to worry about slamming it down our throats; they're (for the most part) aware that it is a tool just like any other.

you just owned everyone who used '' dont want things flying at me''

i have an example for you all. remember in Batman begins when the tample blows up ? a peace of rock is flying in to the camera. if this was a 3D movie everyone would complain how the shot was a gimmick. yet in 2005 noone said anything.

Burton with Alice made almost every shot a gimmick 3D where something is flying or pointed in the camera. but this is hes fault not the fault of 3D. but they filmed this movie before Avatar. now that Avatar's 3D is very popular they will want to use it like Cameron did. so dont be afraid. it wont look like every second there is something flying into the camera.

 

[dark_b]

Well, its a waste of time and money if its not really enhancing the movie, so I'll complain until I'm proven otherwise.

you have the right not to like the 3D. but proven wrong? how can anyone prove your opinion wrong? billion of people liked the 3D in Avatar so studios will use it.

it makes the movie to a lot of people better like color,stero sound,3D sound does.

 

[Dugath]

I think a lot of people have a misconception about 3D. Most people when they think of 3D they think about.. Things coming out at you..

But there is the 3D that adds "depth" to the scenes making it 3D (like in Avatar and in My Bloody Valentine maybe some others but I can not think of them right now). More movies are made with this in mind and not that "stuff coming at you".

But really there is no need to ***** about a movie being 3D , just take your ass to the 2D one.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

My Bloody Valentine? That whole movie was a gimmick. The 3-D was used to devert from the fact it was one of the worst horror movies put out in recent years not named ''Saw" or ''Hostel."

 

[spider-neil]

if the 3D is used like avatar then bring it on, if its used like gimmick then forget it

 

[Kahoot]

It matters if they pull any cheep 3D gimmicky shots that completly take you out of the movie moment and are only there to show off the fact that they are using 3D. (you know, like punches or web shooting directly out at the audience)

They had shots like that in ever Spider-Man movie but coz it was 2D no one cares.

 

[[A]]

Why, why do they have to do this..? Don't they know they're making the Spidey reboot incredibly shallow..? I mean, with ideas and statements like these..