The 3D Discussion Thread

[TheDragonator]

I, for one, am iffy on 3D. I'm sick of films being converted into 3D just to make money (and it's not because it's a 'revolutionary visual medium': It's cuz Avatar made two ****ing billion). But under the right circumstances. For example, CGI animated films should be 3D. But this? ****ing this?

Um, how about no.

I mean, Green Hornet was pushed back a whole goddamn year to convert it to 3D, IMAX, and IMAX 3D.

I mean, all 3D really does is boost ticket prices a bit. You can do that easily with other features, like how Regal Cinema has RPX, which is an ACTUAL enhancement of the experience.

Or for gods sake, have the 3D version justify the increased price. Maybe an extended edition for the 3D screening? Seriously, just something to justify why it's so special.

 

[THANOSRULES]

IMO 3D won't bond and truly catch until you don't need glasses.

In general I find people don't like 3d.

-Costs too much for a ticket
-It hurts there eyes, especially older viewers
-It can be executed poorly, creating confused scenes
-It forces the viewer to focus on certain objects on screen.


The cost alone is a serious matter, usually it doubled the price of already soaring movie ticket prices.

 

[Asgard]

Ive only seen Avatar in 3D and maybe its just my eyes but it seemed overrated.

I was expecting things to really jump out at me or something but I couldnt really tell the difference between watching in 3D and 2D.

 

[mr. peasant]

For 3D movies done right, see How To Train Your Dragon. Easily the best 3D movie I've seen to date. The added depth made some scenes a lot more suspenseful than if it had been 2D. The scenes that come to mind are when he falls off his dragon and the camera briefly shows just how high up he is as well as when he first starts flying on instinct alone (with all the rocks zipping past you, really making it feel like you, the audience, are flying the dragon).

I think the reason a lot of the 3D used in films today doesn't work is because they aren't used in an intelligent manner and (more importantly) not used to help with the storytelling. With the former, the movies tend to just thrust something straight at the audience or wave something in the audience's face (as if going "Ooh! Look! 3D!!"). With the latter, it's because the decision to go 3D is often made by some executive simply to milk ticket sales and because 3D is fashionable at the moment rather than because the director wanting to use it or knowing what to do with it.

 

[AnneFan]

I don't mind 3D films if it's legit 3D, done well and worth my time. Harry Potter Part 2 was quite good. I like watching live 3D sport on television, for example. But if it's a conversion, I will not bother at all. A total waste of money and nothing but a shameless money grab that inflates box office. But really, 90% of the time I just want to sit down in a cinema and watch a movie like the good old days. I'm a traditionalist at heart, that checks 3D out every now and then. 2D will always be the real deal for me, with 3D being a experimental extension.

 

[Liam_H]

Funny you should say that when HP7 Part 2 was a conversion and you thought it was quite good. Didn't see it in 3D but a lot of people told me it was unnecessary. And that's usually the best you can say for most 3D movies.

 

[AnneFan]

Funny you should say that when HP7 Part 2 was a conversion and you thought it was quite good.

Was it? Hmm. As said, I thought it was quite good. Not a Potter fan, by the way. I'm ignorant and went along to a friend's advance screening.

 

[Vapor]

I don't really know what to think with 3D at the moment, I guess I'm kinda 50/50. I don't really see the point when it's done simply for 'depth'. I saw Avatar in 3D and I don't see how the 3D enhanced the film in any major way.

There is an advert for, i think, 3DTV being played in UK cinemas at the moment and it has stuff like butterflies coming out of the screen and at one point a guy kicks a football right at the audience.... some people might call it gimmicky but when I think of 3D, that's what I think of. I like 3D where stuff is popping off the screen or flying past your field of vision. Not every moment of the film but if there was a nice balance between 'depth 3D' and 'in your face 3D' and it was done intelligently then that would be where 3D starts getting worth it IMO.


I saw Captain America in both 3D and 2D and while the 3D was ok, apart from that one shield throw straight at the screen, the 2D was just as good as seeing it in 3D. I saw the 3D re-release of Toy Story and that was totally pointless, would have being just as good to see it back on the big screen in 2D. Alice in Wonderland was rubbish. Transformers 3 was ok in bits, most notably the sky diving scene. Tron Legacy was alright, I guess. The opening trap in Saw 3D was kinda cool but the rest of the films 3D wasn't as good as the opening. I saw Harry Potter part 2 in 3D and there were a couple scenes in that I thought was pretty cool with the 3D and has probably being one of the better 3D experiences in general... I'm surprised to hear it was a conversion, I thought it had being filmed in 3D. 2 films where I actually enjoyed them as 3D films were Jackass 3 and Megamind.

I still maintain that the best example of 3D that I personally have seen was the Christmas Carol trailer I saw when I saw Harry Potter HBP in IMAX and it had Scrooge flying around with all the chains and sparks and snowflakes off the screen. I haven't seen the full film though. Maybe it's 'cos it was one of my first experiences with 3D, I don't know but it was fun, which IMO, is what 3D should be.

Ticket prices for 3D are insane though, it's £10 at my local Odeon..

 

[TheDragonator]

For 3D movies done right, see . Easily the best 3D movie I've seen to . The added depth made some scenes a lot more suspenseful than if it had been 2D. The scenes that come to mind are when he falls off his dragon and the camera briefly shows just how high up he is as well as when he first starts flying on instinct alone (with all the rocks zipping past you, really making it feel like you, the audience, are flying the dragon).

I think the reason a lot of the 3D used in films today doesn't is because they aren't used in an intelligent manner and (more importantly) not used to help with the storytelling. With the former, the movies tend to just thrust something straight at the audience or wave something in the audience's face (as if going "Ooh! Look! 3D!!"). With the latter, it's because the decision to go 3D is often made by some executive simply to milk ticket sales and because 3D is fashionable at the moment rather than because the director wanting to use it or knowing what to do with it.

The 3D was GREAT in that film. The film was awesome by itself, too. I went in not really knowing anything about the film, seeing none of the trailers and reading nothing about it. And it was FREAKING. GREAT!

3D CGI animated films will stick around, mainly because it's the medium 3D works best in. In live action it'll die out though. Hopefully.

 

[THANOSRULES]

Tron legacy was my favorite 3d movie so far

 

[Lord]

Transformers 3 had a good 3D

 

[THANOSRULES]

ALice and Wonderland just hurt my eyes...too much going on

 

[mr. peasant]

Transformers 3 had a good 3D

It's funny you mention Transformer 3's 3D. One of the good thing about its use was that it forced Michael Bay to keep the camera focused on a shot for more than 3 seconds before switching to something else.

 

[Lord]

It's funny you mention Transformer 3's 3D. One of the good thing about its use was that it forced Michael Bay to keep the camera focused on a shot for more than 3 seconds before switching to something else.

Exactly, that's one of the things that made me like the movie