Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3D movie debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    3D movie debate

    I had a search but couldn’t find a thread for this…
    With so many 3D movies coming out I think we need a good debate about 3D in general. I know some of the 3D film threads have odd bits of banter surrounding 3D but there doesn’t seem to be a thread about just 3D in movies.

    My feeling about it is this.

    There seems to be a lot of movies simply shoehorning 3D into films to boost ticket sales. The last one I saw was Clash of the Titans, which in my opinion, was simply a 2D film turned 3D by the aid of computer tech after it was filmed.
    The only (and obvious film) which seemed to be built around 3D is Avatar. It looked great…however; does it boost the film experience? I have seen it in both 3D and 2D and I have to say, it’s the same film really. Ok, some of the spectacle has been removed, but I’m not sure if the same spectacle wouldn’t have faded with time and numerous viewings anyway.
    Almost all of us only have 2D TVs at home and the film was released on bluray and DVD in 2D, not 3D. Film makers know this and they make the films still with the 2D audience in mind because bluray and DVD sales are a large amount of the royalties they receive.
    So why don’t we all buy 3D TVs? In my mind this is nuts. No-one in they right mind is going to sit in they’re living rooms in 10 years time wearing 3D glasses watching coronation street or a football match in 3D (don’t even get me started on 3D TVs in pubs). I already wear glasses, why would I wear a pair of glasses over a pair of glasses?
    So to conclude: I think 3D is simply a way to put people off pirating films by making them feel like they are “missing” something from the film, when in reality, the film is simply shot in 2D and works just as well as a film in 2D as it would in 3D.

    #2
    3D just results in a headache and me struggling to focus my eyes properly in the 5 minutes after leaving the cinema.

    Don't think it adds much to films. Avatar was possibly an exception as the visuals pretty much were the film.

    I'd be happy for them to save it for theme parks

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by abigsmurf View Post
      3D just results in a headache and me struggling to focus my eyes properly in the 5 minutes after leaving the cinema.

      Don't think it adds much to films. Avatar was possibly an exception as the visuals pretty much were the film.

      I'd be happy for them to save it for theme parks
      My flatmate suffered the same problems, I think it's quite common, especially in glass wearers.

      I think 3D is a good spectacle when done right, i.e. Avatar......but you also need to watch it again in 2D to see the other 50% of screen action that was a blurry mess.

      Comment


        #4
        Yeah, I wear glasses. It was a bit worrying the first time I had this happen., it's not often you have to manually put effort in to focus your eyes (except maybe looking at something extremely close up).

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Baseley09 View Post
          but you also need to watch it again in 2D to see the other 50% of screen action that was a blurry mess.
          I've seen it three times (not including watching it for the first time in the blurrorrama that was the Imax) and I liked being able to choose which parts of the film I wanted to focus on, rather than being force fed a preset depth of field like standard 2D provides, which is the opposite to your experience seemingly.

          Comment


            #6
            But considering how expensive it was to make Avatar, doesnt this mean most 3d movies coming out will be the quality of COTT?

            I've always said I think 3d is more suited to gaming than movies anyway.

            Comment


              #7
              but...but...can't you see the Emperor's shiny new 3D clothes?!

              Avatar and Up were really good and worked well because they weren't throwing stuff at the screen, it added depth to the shots. Scenes like, in Avatar, where they're stood on the deck, looking at holograms of where to get the "unobtainium" from (*sigh*). I loved the monitors and windows giving a real sense of how big the room was and probably appreciated more the 3D effect more in subtle uses like this as opposed to scenes with flying islands.

              I like the idea of standard shows being transmitted in 3D and I'd like my next telly to be 3D ready, but I'm not really the type to jump on the technology bandwagon and could probably get a mint TV for half the price without 3D.

              Used in the right films, it'll add to them, but it really feels like a fad and a way to push cinema sales/3D tellies at the moment.

              I saw a tech demo of a 100" Panasonic last year and it was awesometacular, but it'll be pricey for a while yet.

              In summary: I like 3D, but not that much!

              Anybody else pre-ordered their tickets to Street Dance 3D?

              Comment


                #8
                Cloudy with a chance of meatballs looked good in 3d. Well, for the first 20 minutes til I got a headache. Not tried another 3d movie since though. I have better than 20/20 vision so this problem is not limited to spectacle wearers.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Your avatar is giving me a headache.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Can you have better than 20/20 vision?

                    Can you see through walls and stuff?!

                    3D movies I've had no trouble with, but things like the Terminator 3D ride at Universal Studios makes me go cross-eyed as I can't focus on some bits!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by QualityChimp View Post
                      looking at holograms of where to get the "unobtainium" from (*sigh*).
                      You do realise that the phrase 'Unobtainium' is quite real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by dataDave View Post
                        I've seen it three times (not including watching it for the first time in the blurrorrama that was the Imax) and I liked being able to choose which parts of the film I wanted to focus on, rather than being force fed a preset depth of field like standard 2D provides, which is the opposite to your experience seemingly.
                        I think my absolute joy and levels of niggly annoyance were inconsistent throughout that movie regarding the 3D work!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by dataDave View Post
                          You do realise that the phrase 'Unobtainium' is quite real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
                          Yeah, sometimes it's a term to describe a material not yet available, and sometimes on things that do exist, like the engineers on the SR-71 Blackbird called titanium "unobtainium".

                          It doesn't, however, stop the term from sounding a little, y'know, rubbish...

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I'm sure eventually it'll become standard in the home but I'm hoping the current cinema fad will die out as the novelty wears off... or at least if they'd stop charging ?2.50 per film extra for it. Personally, being able to see some field of depth on the screen adds nothing to the experience, it's something I can live with or without. As far as in the home goes with the upcoming 3D wave... a 2hr film is often enough of an eye strain. As long as they require me to use 3D glasses in front of the display there's no chance I'm going to buy a TV with the function. It reminds me of the CG rush post-Toy Story, we still have CG films now but it's not as relentless a wave of tat as the novelty wore off, hopefully 3D will head the same way and only be used where more appropriate in time

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by dataDave View Post
                              You do realise that the phrase 'Unobtainium' is quite real? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
                              It exists in so much it's a phrase jokingly used for an implausible substance that makes physics a lot easier. Actually naming a substance it is pretty much the equivalent to naming the mechs 'thingies'

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X