they're 3d glasses
Even Gandalf thinks the Hobbit in 3d is a fucking stupid money making exercise
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 9:08,
Reply)
Why are you against 3D? Just out of curiosity.
The extra cost? Or having to wear daft glasses throughout a film? Or do you just think it looks rubbish? Or something else perhaps?
(
presferatu, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 9:58,
Reply)
My problem with it is that filmmakers are still spending huge amounts of time on making a film look ace in 3D & chuff all on the script.
*cough* Prometheus *cough*
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:04,
Reply)
Ah. I blame the script that mostly on Damon Lindelof being a hack and Scott going a bit senile.
I don't think The Hobbit will have that problem though as they already have a kick ass story. I like to think they'll do the 3D well and tastefully.
(
presferatu, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:10,
Reply)
The Hobbit = "kick ass story"?
Hmmm. Each to their own, I guess.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:13,
Reply)
Yeah, it's great. If you can get past all the singing and animals setting the table and shit.
In terms of an origin story, at least it makes sense. Unlike aforementioned Promiscuous.
(
presferatu, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:17,
Reply)
it reduces the colour and brightness from how the cinematographer intended
fast moving sequences break up and become almost impossible to follow, you lose information around the edges of the screen, it adds nothing to a story.
It's fine if you are going to the cinema for a novelty rollercoaster ride or perhaps a slow camera pan IMAX nature documentary which would definitely benefit from the added "I can almost reach out and touch it ness" but I've only ever seen it used as a gimmick which in some films completely detracts from an otherwise serious story.
For old style schlock horror (original Red and Green house of wax) it works, which is why I'm tempted to see Dredd for the slow motion gore.
The main reason for 3d films is to make cinema piracy harder. It's not for customer enjoyment/making film better.
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:24,
Reply)
It's a variety of things
For the most part, I find 3D either looks the same, or worse. Even when it's the same, occasionally "something pointy" happens, which reminds me I'm watching a 3D film, breaking the immersion.
The Avengers was a great film, but the 3D effects were fucking horrible. Why did I have to pay more for this? (nowhere was showing 2D any more).
The only time I have enjoyed 3D in a film was, oddly, Final Destination 3D. The 3D was only really used to make a gratuitously gory part even more gratuitously gory, which made me laugh quite a lot.
But I probably would've laughed anyway...
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Mon 23 Jul 2012, 10:27,
Reply)
Interesting.
You're right Avengers in 3D was awful. But that's the only time I've ever really felt ripped off by 3D.
I think it's true what Happy Toast is saying, it's better suited for the big roller coaster movies, sure but I think there is a place for it if it's done well. I mean, in the case of Avatar, it probably made it better because you go 'fuck I'm bored, but ooh isn't it pretty'
And Pixar use it pretty well. Up and Toy Story 3 seemed more subtle, like the 3D was more inward, like a depth of field thing as opposed to stuff leaping out at you. But then by the end you didn't notice it any more so what's the point? Hmm...it's tricky init.
(
presferatu, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 11:14,
Reply)
I found the the addition of a sense of distance across the rainforest
and one propeller flying toward you in Up was not worth the loss of visual fidelity
it was a muddying distraction in Up which was the last thing I wanted during that film
(
HappyToast Groat froth, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 11:28,
Reply)
Well, I didn't think it was that bad.
But then I am blind in one eye so I'm just imagining the 3D usually.
(
presferatu, Mon 23 Jul 2012, 11:37,
Reply)