b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9821496 (Thread)

# The only 'recent' movie I saw in 3D was Monsters vs. Aliens - and I got motion sickness during a street chase scene :/
Yeh, eye candy I guess - It's certainly a 'cinema' movie
(I helped save b3ta! Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:11, archived)
# i saw that in 2D and didn't get any motion sickness.
(I helped save b3ta! Thor_sonofodin has done things, terrible things on, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:16, archived)
# Up was beautiful in 3d
mainly because they only had one leap out the screen at you moment, and the rest added depth to big vistas. I can't help feeling that things whizzing past constantly and monsters leaping about is going to be quite nausea inducing
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:18, archived)
# So does this new-fangled 3D work then?
watching Flesh for Frankenstein on C4 the other night, it seemed to all be in sepia, and gave me a headache, but it worked... sort of, even if the 3D effects were all a bit blurry.

I've not seen anything NEW in 3D
(I helped save b3ta! Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:28, archived)
# me neither
but I've heard good things
(I helped save b3ta! bilbobarneybobs I'll be 14 in b3ta years soon., Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:30, archived)
# In the cinema it works through polarisation with 2 projectors and polarised lenses, so you get full colour - it looks really good (just as long as you keep your head straight and don't move about too much :P)
On telly it's not quite that easy and therefore, looks a bit poo.
(I helped save b3ta! Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:32, archived)
# in guesswork, luddite terms.... you wear sunglasses with a kind of twisted lense in each
So everything is darker and less vibrant than normal, but its better than the sepia look of old.

Which is why I'd rather watch the film in 2d. But its not being described as a film its a rollercoaster - just without the excitement, vibration and wind, and with lost of long story bits.
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:33, archived)
# Coraline worked in 3D too
I think it's the use of 3D to add depth, rather than throw stuff at your face, which made it effective and subtle, rather than gimmicky.

I'm looking forward to Avatar a lot. I bet I'll be disappointed, but for some reason I'm a bit excited about it.

Possibly because I'm tall and blue and it's rare to see my point of view in films.
(I helped save b3ta! Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:56, archived)
# I thought the opposite in Coraline
It was horribly gimmicky, weird stuff stood out that distracted from the story - The first thing I remember of that film is a bowl of peas on the dinner table!

Terrible film, not a patch on Corpse Bride or Nightmare, appalling adaptation of the source too
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 10:59, archived)
# How odd that I disagree so strongly.
I loved the book, and I like the film a lot. Very different, certainly not a direct port over, and with a different feel, but I had a good time. I really liked the 3D, I didn't find it intrusive at all. The noly "showy" bit I remember is the flight over the garden.

If you want bad modern 3D, the excellently shite "The Final Destination" is a great example of a poorly made film that could have nonetheless been a good laugh, crippled by un-necessary special effects and idiotic, poorly implemented 3D.
(I helped save b3ta! Mockingbird Practitioner of SCIENCE, Fri 4 Dec 2009, 11:38, archived)