Jump to content

3D or not to 3D?

Recommended Posts

I can take it or leave it and it all comes down to whether the film has been made for 3D or if they have decided to add the 3D effects as an afterthought.

 

I really enjoyed Avatar in 3D and loved how the main focus was the scenrey and extending the background rather than OTT things flying out the screen....after that I watched Alice in Wonderland in 3D and wasn't impressed and wished i had chosen the 2D option.

 

After that I kind of decided I wouldnt watch any more 3D films as you can't be sure it will be worth it, but this year I have watched Three Muskateers and Harold and Kumar's Christmas both in 3D and did enjoy both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't stand 3D. Horrible, tacky gimmick!

 

It might look OK for the odd movie, but I loathe the glasses and the whole thing is just a bit like a desperate cash in.

 

A solid thumbs down from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For ophthalmological reasons, I cannot see "fake 3D".

 

I can drive, shoot, etc. perfectly fine (eyes and motor reflexes long "auto-adjusted"/attuned over decades), but I just cannot see 'man-made' 3D, whether on doctor's dot cards, with the age-old red/blue cardboard glasses and colour-offset TV picture, on modern superlarge movie screens or with modern active or passive TV sets.

 

Look for the only guy in a '3D audience' who doesn't jump up, scream and/or ooh-aah at the effect(s). That'll be me.

 

So I don't bother.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Martin Scorsese can't make 3D work, that about says it all. The only downside to Hugo, the 3D, everything else about the film was great. Next time I'll watch it in 2D. It doesn't immerse, it does quite the opposite. I'm all too aware that I am wearing glasses that are hurting my eyes and that any minute now Sacha Baron Cohen's nose is going to poke me in the eye. Sound, colour, widescreen were all innovations that worked, they've tried 3D numerous times and it has failed every time and last year 3D was failing again.

 

Good news in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3d films are quality avatar one of the best for effects ,

final destination5 also great film in 3d

3d's the future for films

 

also got the the 3d glass's you get a cinema not heavy or unconformable at all

so ok as don't flicker like other glasses

Edited by barts96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3d's the future for films

 

We'll check back on this quote in a year :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll check back on this quote in a year

ok

as 4d coming more into play where you get the smells

you not seen many good 3d films then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im getting a 3d telly this week, cant wait, just wish the matrix had been done in 3d, that would have been amazing !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 3d is great, though they could scrap the glasses you have to wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think 3d is great, though they could scrap the glasses you have to wear.

 

some tv's being released this year, only upto about 23 inch though, that are 3d without any glasses, wont be long now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for all those haters out there have you seen 3d in action i was one of your until i tested it and now own a 3d tv with it a collection of 3d movies and believe me you have got to see avatar in 3d it is just :wow:

 

I saw 'Avatar' and it uses 3D very well, but unfortunately the script is a shambles - as with many otherwise good James Cameron films - it even succeeds in making Sigourney Weaver sound like a dunce, which is some achievement.

 

The film industry and specifically Hollywood has leapt on 3D as a saviour, but it's the desperation of a drowning man. The format works for certain genres of film, but is meaningless for many others and out of reach for the people making many low budget films. And no amount of well-employed 3D will make up for bad storytelling.

 

Even more pointless is 3D TV. I've watched an example at the National Media Museum and it feels like a pop-up book, not the immersive depth of 'Avatar'. The difference is screen size - IMAX fills your field of vision and without that scale, 3D is just a gimmick. I think I agree with Mark Kermode that 3D isn't the future of cinema - IMAX is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.