3D is pointless and detracts from films...
Glad someone else thinks so too.
( vix0r was not Matthew on, Thu 23 Sep 2010, 23:06, 2 replies)

A friend once told me somthing an American film critic said, which perfectly sums up 3D for me.

When you watch a film, be it action, horror, romance, comedy or anything else, your going to escape from your world and be emersed in anouther. When you get a 3D effect, it breaks that emersion, rips you from that outher world by reminding you you are sat in a theater watching a movie.

True words on the irony of effects ment to increase the experience. There's also the fact that 3D reduces the colour of a film by 30%.
(Mong goose, Thu 23 Sep 2010, 23:30, closed)

Agreed!
Although if it's not overplayed (no gee-whiz, look at that coming out at us) it can give a good sense of scale. It worked in Avatar, I thought, because of the nature of the huge landscapes and deep perspectives. But generally I agree, a pointless gimmick.

The same for HD: I never sit at home thinking "Hm, this would be so much better if the picture resolution was higher". In fact, if you're aware of the screen, it's clearly a shit film/program, because you haven't been absorbed.
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Fri 24 Sep 2010, 10:40, closed)

Avatar is about the only film ever that's used 3D subtly
rather than flinging things at the screen in the cheapest manner imaginable, which is why it worked well.

If all films did the 3D effect that calmly, Mong Goose's comment above would be a bit like saying "when you watch a film in colour, it breaks that immersion by reminding you you are sat in a theatre watching a movie".
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Fri 24 Sep 2010, 12:30, closed)