[chadbang]

Took the kids to go see the new Dreamworks film "How to Train Your Dragon" in 3D - paying the prerequiste premium 3D price. I think this is about the sixth 3D film I've seen in the last 2 years. That includes "Bolt," "Monsters Vs Aliens" "Up!" "Journey to the Center of the Earth" "Avatar" and now "How to Train Your Dragon" (which was a fair film, hardly worth the 94% positive rating it has at rotten tomatoes. More like B- in my book. Skimpy story.). I have to say the 3D magic has already worn off for me . I was blown away by my first contemporary 3D move ("Bolt") and came out ranting about "how great 3D is now!" but the love affair has cooled. And except for one or two flying sequences, I think I could have enjoyed the movie to the same degree without the 3D gimmick. I was looking at wikipedia, and 3D seems to come and go in waves. Maybe my latest feeling about 3D helps explains why that is. It may be novel and fun for a couple movies, but that enchantment fades after a bit. Maybe, as many say, 3Ds ultimately succumbs to its gimmicky nature. I'm also pretty sure that's why "Avatar" was such a hit. Unless you were an adult with kids, you probably missed most of the previous 3D movies that were kids movies.


(and I know my enthusiam will surely wane if I have to keep paying $15 bucks a ticket for these movies)

 

[Drag0n]

I have a mind of my own and cant be trained.

 

[Jubei]

I wear spectacles and having to place the 3D glasses ON TOP OF my own makes it really uncomfortable. I find it real tiring on my eyes. And I suspect they don't disinfect the 3D glasses enough (like not disinfecting them after EVERY show ... might be better in the States though).

I can see the point of doing 3D for something like Avatar (which I am not that fond of, but respect its technical side), but it seems many of the upcoming big budget action films will be in 3D ... I will see Clash Of The Titans, but again it is in 3D.

Bloody expensive too those premium 3D prices.

 

[Graphicism]

Last night I watched Alice in wonderland in 3D which was my first 3D movie experience. The 3D effect was pretty cool at the start of the movie but towards the middle the fun factor had worn off to a point I noticed how blurry the movie was. By the end I wasn't even paying attention to the 3D effect and rather disappointed by this new fad.

Hopefully we pass this phase quickly, I'd be much more interested in seeing 5400p or something to that affect. Has anyone else noticed how nice a blu-ray movie looks when reduced to a quarter of it's aspect ratio... now thats the future!

 

[logwed]

I enjoyed Avatar, I thought that it was visually stunning. In that movie, the 3D didn't seem really tacked on as it is in most, where you have very contrived 3D sequences. Rather, it just gave the field a pleasant sense of depth. Still, I would agree that with most movies, the 3D is simply a cheesy afterthought.

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hopefully we pass this phase quickly, I'd be much more interested in seeing 5400p or something to that affect. Has anyone else noticed how nice a blu-ray movie looks when reduced to a quarter of it's aspect ratio... now thats the future!

Pointless, your TV can't resolve that kind of detail.

Other than that, I agree. 3D is kinda lame in my book.

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by logwed /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pointless, your TV can't resolve that kind of detail.

Technically no, but a 10+ MB DSLR still picture puts Blu-Ray to shame; sharpness, contrast, detail is all far superior. Therefore when I watch a Blu-Ray movie at 1/4 it's original size it looks a heck of a lot sharper...

 

[pcf]

Both "Alice in Wonderland" and "Clash of the Titans"(coming out next week) were not shot in 3D. They were converted artificially in post production. For them to advertise the films as 3D films to me is misleading the public. I'm not talking about whether or not they are good films since I think Alice in Wonderland is great. Tim Burton started shooting it in stereo but half way through he felt that it was too restricted for him so he abandoned it. Films like Avatar and How to train your dragon are real 3D films that were shot in stereo. Again, nothing to do with whether they are good films or not- just want to clarify that. When you see "Clash of Titans" being promoted in the next few days as a 3D epic, at least you know they are not being totally honest.

 

[batphink]

Rainbow Symphony sells 3D glasses and clip-ons.

 

[kikkomang]

its just a way to make films

you don't hear anyone complaining about how many live action films ive seen in the past 6 months.

 

[linuxworks]

I have not seen avatar and I don't go to movie theaters anymore (not by choice, anyway). I hate the movie studios and since they have declared war on consumers, I've boycotted them as much as I can.

3d does not impress me and I won't pay for its premium. I wear glasses and that pretty much rules out any 'glasses on top of glasses'. that sounds quite unpleasant to me. someone mentioned that they re-use glasses. sounds like a nice way to spread 'stuff'. NO THANKS.

clearly the studios are running out of ideas and grabbing at anything they can.

they won't get my money. last theater I was in was probably more than 5 years ago! its an entirely unpleasant experience and home theaters have totally replaced the 'pile everyone into 1 stuffy room' experience. the image does not have to be 'big' for me; content is content and the screen size matters a lot less to me than it seems to with other people.

 

[notmuchcash]

My theater has How to Train Your Dragon in 2D, I'll have to watch it sometime while working.

Our privately owned theater is apparently not getting any of the new movies in 3D, and I can't say I'm bothered by it.

 

[Armaegis]

The 3D stuff gives me a headache, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Both "Alice in Wonderland" and "Clash of the Titans"(coming out next week) were not shot in 3D. They were converted artificially in post production. For them to advertise the films as 3D films to me is misleading the public. I'm not talking about whether or not they are good films since I think Alice in Wonderland is great. Tim Burton started shooting it in stereo but half way through he felt that it was too restricted for him so he abandoned it. Films like Avatar and How to train your dragon are real 3D films that were shot in stereo. Again, nothing to do with whether they are good films or not- just want to clarify that. When you see "Clash of Titans" being promoted in the next few days as a 3D epic, at least you know they are not being totally honest.

Indeed. Avatar was a loosely enjoyable 3D experience; the novelty made a not terribly interesting movie slightly better. However, I plan never to see a fake/post production 3D movie. 2D is an entirely capable form already, and there's really nothing about 3D to make a perfect movie any better. I suppose it's not inconceivable for a director to make creative use of 3D to do something really special, but the amusement park ride movie isn't it.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Yep, I also think 3D is a passing gimmick. I hate the glasses, too, since I have to wear them over my regular glasses.

Without getting out the tinfoil hat, I halfway think that the current 3D push has a lot more to do with the failure of HD-DVD and the limp sales of Blu-Ray. They're hoping that people will fork over more money to buy everything all over again.

That's probably why some 3D movies were converted after-the-fact from 2D. Does anyone else remember the colorization controversy back in the 1980s? That'll happen all over again if 3D shows the slightest bit of market traction. Anyone else up for seeing a 3D rendered "Casablanca"? Me neither, but that's what the studios likely want.

For the record, I did go see "Avatar" in 3D and enjoyed it. The script wasn't much, but props for actual character development and stunning visuals.