The 3D looks bad.

[Timstuff]

I was in the theater watching Tron Legacy in 3D the other night, and the 3D trailer for Thor played before it. I was not impressed with the quality of the stereo conversion, to say the least. In the closeups, Thor's face looked like it was being projected onto an egg-shaped object. His facial features had no definition, and I don't think he even had a nose. It was a flat image being projected onto a round, smooth object, and the effect did not look very convincing or flattering to the actor.

Overall, the 3D in this film looks like it's going to be lacking rather sorely in detail, and a lot of it also looked dark and blurry. Then again, this is a post-production stereo conversion so you can't really expect very high quality, but even so, I think it goes without saying that a 3D transfer that looks this bad is not worth your money.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

3d is NEVER worth your money!

 

[piccolo]

I knew it.

Never seeing another post-conversion again.

 

[BoredGuy]

Of course the 3d looked bad, it was converted.


This is a question I've been pondering lately.

the trailer said "in 3d, 2d in select theatres" and I'm sure it will be the same for Cap.

So if the 3d turns people off and these films suffer as a result, will that impact Marvel's plans for avengers?? Since avengers will have already started filming, it would be difficult to change mid stream. I'm just starting to get the feeling that Thor will receive the same reaction Clash of the Titans did, where everyone just talks about how awful 3d conversion is and barely mentions the movie (though i never saw CotT, was it any good?)

Basically, yeah, F*** 3d

 

[piccolo]

re: CotT

Couldn't tell you. Was too busy whipping the glasses off and on depending on how horrible the effects were at the moment to really get into the movie. It completely ruined it. Srs.

I do remember Gemma Arterton being hot.

 

[ddddeeee]

3d is never worth your money!

qft.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I do remember Gemma Arterton being hot.

It is the one thing she's good at.

Shame about the 3D. I have yet to see the trailer in 3D myself, but I'm planning to watch both versions of the movie regardless.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah when I saw Tron Legacy none of the trailers I saw (Thor, Green Hornet, Mars Needs Moms) looked good

 

[Timstuff]

Mars Needs Moms just plain looks like a crappy movie, period. It's literally a waste of CG, since it just looks like a live action film that they decided needed an expensive coat of paint.

 

[GhostPoet]

3D is highly dependant on the theater too. If you go to a REALLY nice Theater with great quality screens and projectors it makes a huge difference.

 

[WarBlade]

3d is NEVER worth your money!

Hey! I get paid good money to watch 3D movies!

3D is highly dependant on the theater too. If you go to a REALLY nice Theater with great quality screens and projectors it makes a huge difference.

That's oversimplified IMO. The quality of the projection equipment strikes me as a misrepresentation of the generation of machine and the 3D system used. Similarly, the quality of the screen shouldn't be an issue unless the screen quality is so poor that it has a visible manufacturing defect, or some idiot has thrown Coke at it.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Mars Needs Moms just plain looks like a crappy movie, period. It's literally a waste of CG, since it just looks like a live action film that they decided needed an expensive coat of paint.

Yeah, given the subject matter and tone, I have no idea why they went with photorealistic CGI. I guess maybe since it's the studio that did The Polar Express, that might be all they know how to do well...

 

[TX85]

I personally love 3D and think it's very worth it!,I do however think that it's much better when in 3D cameras than converted and I sure agree that it's being done way way too much&often!

 

[Still A ThorFan]

3D is a scam. First of all it only works well with animated movies, pixar for example. But it doesn't seem to work well with Live Action, and its pointles anyway.

I went to see Gulliver's Travels, it was only in 3D. During the movie I decided to remove the big stupid glasses to see how it looked. It just looked blurry, but with the glasses on it looked clear. So I asked myself, what is the point? For that they should've just filmed it in 2D, because with 3D we're just getting a clear picture.

At one point during the movie my wife looked at me and asked "Isn't this supposed to be in 3D?"

I think its just a f'n scam. The studios know the general public is not in love with 3D but they force it on us anyway because if we want to see a movie and its only in 3D we don't have much of a choice. Its just a way for them to make money.

I hope this made some sense.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Am I gonna believe the guy with the Green Lantern sig and av? Or am I gonna believe the Marvel humanitarians and the wonderful Ken Branah?

LOL JOKE!!

 

[Vartha]

Well I wish they used a 3D camera in the non action scenes, personally.
The only reason they didn't was the 3D cameras weren't as agile as a regular camera for the action scenes they wanted.
IF I can afford the both of the movies I'll see the 3D AFTER the 2D. I don't think the theater close to me is set up for 3D being around 15 years old, tho the "sister" theaters about 5 miles away are only 3 years old. heh all together there's 25 screens between the two Malco theaters. lol

 

[Vartha]

Am I gonna believe the guy with the Green Lantern sig and av? Or am I gonna believe the Marvel humanitarians and the wonderful Ken Branah?

LOL JOKE!!

Well The two theaters I mentioned boast 3d shows (just now checked their site) tho I haven't seen a 3D movie yet in ANY theater because of the cost. Tho I do think it really depends on the theater and how up to date the place is that's showing the 3D.

 

[marcvader]

I saw the trailer in 3D IMAX and my friends and I thought it looked fine.

 

[WarBlade]

Am I gonna believe the guy with the Green Lantern sig and av? Or am I gonna believe the Marvel humanitarians and the wonderful Ken Branah?

Ignore both. Believe the techs who deal with cinema equipment for a living. t:

Well The two theaters I mentioned boast 3d shows (just now checked their site) tho I haven't seen a 3D movie yet in ANY theater because of the cost. Tho I do think it really depends on the theater and how up to date the place is that's showing the 3D.

The age of the complex won't play into it much. Digital cinema is still a fairly young industry, so the new equipment needed at both locations shouldn't be too much different between your 3 year old site and your 15 year old site.

 

[Vartha]

Ignore both. Believe the techs who deal with cinema equipment for a living. t:



The age of the complex won't play into it much. Digital cinema is still a fairly young industry, so the new equipment needed at both locations shouldn't be too much different between your 3 year old site and your 15 year old site.

heh back in the early 80's I worked in a theater, Things in the camera room have changed quite a bit.

 

[WarBlade]

"Camera room"???

 

[ultimatefan]

I just feel like 3-D is becoming more and more a tired gimmick. I just saw Tron Legacy in 3-D, and I caught myself thinking 3-D didn´t look nearly as cool as it did just some months ago. It felt like the novelty was gone and now it was more distracting than anything else.

 

[Vartha]

"Camera room"???

Projection room. you know the room where the actual FILM is on huge tables? t:

 

[Bren]

I'm going to go out of my way to watch this initially in 2d. If it's really good, I'll give the 3d a go. If there is only 3d available... Would absolutely loathe to be forced to watch something in 3d.

 

[Vartha]

Well maybe there's a theater close by to see 2d at seeing as it's 2d where available.