[QUOTE=postal;21551421]where you can focus your eyes on different stuff on screen[/QUOTE]
I still found it very difficult to do that watching Avatar especially during the close-ups.
I'm so fucking sick of it.
Any movie I see is the 2D version. Never have liked any movie in 3D better than the 2D.
This new 3D has come about because it's possible to do it cheaply. The only way it'll die out is if people keep making shit 3D films ( *cough* Clash of the Titans).
If you can't wear 3D glasses comfortably, I'm sure there are clip-on polarizing lenses or something
I have glasses, it makes it very difficult to wear two pairs one on top of the other at the same time.
[QUOTE=danharibo;21552667]This new 3D has come about because it's possible to do it cheaply. [/b]The only way it'll die out is if people keep making shit 3D films ( *cough* Clash of the Titans).[/b] [/QUOTE]
Hollywoods not taking the hint either. I keep hearing about films that have long since finished filming being converted to 3D in post-production, just like Clash.
I've never seen a 3D movie. Tron legacy will be my first (and probably last)
I think movie trailers should just announced if they're NOT in 3-D.
It'd make a lot of trailers a lot shorter.
[QUOTE=Reaper33;21551345]I haven't seen a movie in 3D since spy kids 3D when I was a kid. [/QUOTE]
Same for me, this is what made me hate 3D movies. The entire movie was in the red and blue format but there was only 3 3D moments in the entire movie. I've seen other 3D movies but the 3D aspect really didn't add much to the experience besides a headache.
Although, I haven't seen any of the new ones so I don't know if they improved much.
I'm sure plenty of those will be well-made. Some won't, but some will.
Movies I'm looking forward to:
- Saw VII (It will probably be shit like the last two, but I'm too far in to stop now)
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
- The Cabin in the Woods (I love me some horror/thriller, even though most suck ass)
- Resident Evil: Afterlife (Please be good...)
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Yogi Bear? What the shitt?
[QUOTE=Mechanical_Chicken;21552896]Same for me, this is what made me hate 3D movies.[/QUOTE]
Haven't seen a 3D movie made in the last 7 years, [b]hate them anyways[/b] :downs:
And I saw How To Train Your Dragon in 3D last night and enjoyed it. Not sure if the 3D really did anything though, but there was some nice CGI
Meh, if it doesn't cost me anymore then it should and it gets better then I don't see the bad.
[QUOTE=M_B;21552260]most 3D films for the last 10 years use polarization, polarization's old as tits, ever been to Disneyland, Honey I Shrunk The Audience? that was put in in 1994[/QUOTE]
Went this summer with my family, i jumped like a little girl.
I don't mind it as long as it isn't the red and blue kind. The 3D in Clash of the Titans didn't really bother me at all.
/rant about technology versus media
Honestly the 3D in Avatar was uncomfortable to watch. The film looks like something is really far away/close up, but really you have to focus on the screen to see it clearly. And the image is really dull, a normal film looks much brighter.
I'd much rather they stop their bullshit and start making films in 70mm again. Maybe even with a higher framerate because 24fps is getting oooolld.
[QUOTE=postal;21551421]I'm only sick of the shit post-production last minute 3D that companies do to try and make more money off the film (like clash of the titans). But avatar-style 3D, when they actually film the movie for 3D, where you can focus your eyes on different stuff on screen, is awesome and I'll never get tired of it. I really look forward to seeing it in Tron and the Alien Prequels.[/QUOTE]Exactly what this sexy and intelligent fellow said. (I, in fact, just came back from watching Clash of the Titans)
I agree with what Postal was saying on the previous page. If the movie is shot for 3D then I'm all for watching it, but post-production 3D is terrible (Clash). As long as the standard becomes to shoot in 3D then I will embrace the future. If studios think that adding 3D as a gimmick (like in post-production cases) then I think I'll just stick to 2D.
Now don't get me wrong, movie components such as the story should still take primary focus. However 3D can seriously add some cool cinematographic effect on the audience if done well.
I would have enjoyed Avatar more if I'd seen the 2D version. The glasses just made everything blurry as shit, so I couldn't really appreciate all the "mind-blowing" special effects.
It was like I was right there in the movie, and incredibly nearsighted.
The glasses are just annoying as hell too. They never fit properly and they always give me a headache. It's like every pair is designed to fit a child's head and not an adult's.
[editline]01:56PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Reaper33;21551345]Shrek Forever After
Cats & Dogs: the Revenge of Kitty Galore
Step Up 3D (totally necessary)
Saw VII (7 movies in and NOW they decide to do it.)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
XXX: the Return of Xander Cage
Kung Fu Panda: the Kaboom of Doom
Cars 2
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World
Happy Feet 2 in 3D
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D
The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn
Stretch Armstrong
Madagascar 3[/QUOTE]
Why the fuck do these movies exist
They just HAD to split the last Harry Potter movie into two parts? They need THAT MUCH money?
Another XXX movie? Didn't they realize how shitty the second movie did?
And I guess the world isn't tired of Spy Kids yet? I guess as long as kids exist, they'll be dragging their parents to the theaters to see every kid-aimed movie that exists.
I don't even have anything to say to Alvin & the Chipmunks.
Tintin is cool and all, but "the secret of the unicorn" sounds gayer than an all-male orgy playing Robot Unicorn Attack
Now... Why Stretch Armstrong? Are they trying to follow Transformers here, making a movie about a toy that was popular with an earlier generation of kids? Because I really think Transformers had a lot more going for it than Stretch Armstrong does.
Everything else is just a sequel or 3D adaptation of an existing kids' movie. It looks like 3D is just a way to squeeze a few more million dollars out of a previously-released movie.
Yeah it's really exploding right now. We've had lots of 3D phases before but nothing like this.
I don't really see what the fuss is about with 3D films. I certainly don't miss it when watching the Big Lebowski for the millionth time.
[QUOTE=Loofiloo;21554193]They just HAD to split the last Harry Potter movie into two parts? They need THAT MUCH money?
[/QUOTE]
To be fair, it was a pretty intense book and if they made it into one film they'd have to cut out most of the camping storyline which was important.
3D does generate sales though. Avatar had a shitty plot but 3D and their awesome effects manage to pull it through.
[QUOTE=Splurgy;21554604]To be fair, it was a pretty intense book and if they made it into one film they'd have to cut out most of the camping storyline which was important.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's been a problem pretty much since the first film that they had to squeeze things a lot until it fit. And as the books got longer it only got worse until it stopped being a coherent movie and started being a random collection of scenes from the book. That's one of the reasons why I liked half-blood prince really, they stopped trying to squeeze things and sort of just rewrote the story from the ground up to fit the format, and it was a really long film too. And with a two parter to fully cover the details, the quality of half-blood prince carrying over with the same people doing 7, and John Williams on the music again, I don't think I'll even read the book at all.
All I've ever had is good experiences with 3D, so I can't say I'm sick of it....even though it is more expensive.
I really want a 3DTV...
[QUOTE=BmB;21554895]Yeah, it's been a problem pretty much since the first film that they had to squeeze things a lot until it fit. And as the books got longer it only got worse until it stopped being a coherent movie and started being a random collection of scenes from the book. That's one of the reasons why I liked half-blood prince really, they stopped trying to squeeze things and sort of just rewrote the story from the ground up to fit the format, and it was a really long film too. And with a two parter to fully cover the details, the quality of half-blood prince carrying over with the same people doing 7, and John Williams on the music again, I don't think I'll even read the book at all.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, read the book! You're missing out if you don't read it - Rowling's writing style makes it so it's like a movie's playing in your head and then bam! it's 5 am.
Holy shitnaz, a fucking Kenney Chesney movie in fucking 3D jesus christ you gotta be kidding me i have to see this.
In the past year or so, everything seems to be 3D.
I'm not complaining though, I do like it, but if it's a really good movie, I start to forget about the visuals as I'm locked in the storyline. I seem to be 'there' rather than sitting in the cinema with 3D glasses.
I think in the next few years though, everything will my shot in 3D as well as 2D, as already, 3D tv is starting to come in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
