![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
but I had high hopes for the film itself
( ,
Thu 8 Apr 2010, 13:31,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Apparently the 3D version isn't as good.
( ,
Thu 8 Apr 2010, 13:34,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
the original still stands as the better of the two - there is a small nod to the original with the mechanical owl which plays a very brief cameo. The 3D in of itself is good but the film doesn't make proper use of the technology as there is a lot of fast action sequences that just look dark and blurry in 3D and it's very hard to focus on what's going on - also because of the scale of the monsters the 3D doesn't work as it's clipped by the boundaries of the screen and the effect works much better when the 3D elements are within the boundaries thereby appearing to come out of the screen.
The movie is a 'meh!' update probably better seen in 2D
( ,
Thu 8 Apr 2010, 13:39,
archived)
The movie is a 'meh!' update probably better seen in 2D
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
Explain? Is it like a series of cardboard cutouts stood at different distances to each other?
( ,
Thu 8 Apr 2010, 13:54,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
then added the 3d in post, when avatar did well.
( ,
Thu 8 Apr 2010, 14:07,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
looks like I chose the wrong film for my first look at the new 3D.
( ,
Thu 8 Apr 2010, 14:09,
archived)