Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 4:26 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3151
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Click here to read topic.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:09 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
I was one of those scrambling across town to see Coraline in NOT 3D. My brother insisted "I won't watch a movie in 3D," and I agreed; 2D for us. A lot of my friends feel this way too. I don't think 3D will take over.

A pop-up book/novel is a great analogy.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:22 am
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
You already saw MvA...wow.

As for the rest of your commentary, can't say I'm too surprised.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:34 am
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
How do polarized lenses work for people like me who need to wear glasses anyway? Do you have to wear one pair of glasses over the other? Are clip-ons available? After unfortunate experiences with low quality green and red 3D-glasses, this would be the most important issue for me.

And I'm not willing to pay anything close to $30 or the equivalent in Euros just to watch a film, unless it greatly improves the experience.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:38 am
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3151
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Unke wrote:
How do polarized lenses work for people like me who need to wear glasses anyway? Do you have to wear one pair of glasses over the other? Are clip-ons available? After unfortunate experiences with low quality green and red 3D-glasses, this would be the most important issue for me.

And I'm not willing to pay anything close to $30 or the equivalent in Euros just to watch a film, unless it greatly improves the experience.


Clip-ons for 3-D movies work the same way clip-on sunglasses work. The circularly polarized clip-ons should be good for all 3-D movies except IMAX (that format uses linear polarization), so it's a reasonable investment for me since I expect to be seeing a fair number of 3-D movies in the near future. If you don't have clip-ons, you have to wear the theater-provided glasses over your own. IMO, it's uncomfortable. Some people feel otherwise.

Does it improve the experience? That's a subjective question. Is it worth $30? Probably not unless you plan to see a lot of 3-D movies.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:12 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Coraline was the first movie I had seen in a theater in 3D and I found the entire experience distracting. It would have been more enjoyable and a few bucks cheaper just to catch it in 2D.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:01 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
I agree with your post and am saddened to hear Monsters Vs. Aliens is a bust regarding it's 3D aspect. The advertisements - "A Monsterous 3D Even" certainly is just a marketing tool, yet people will probably be blown away by it. I appreciate the fact that you enjoy Coraline in 3D and noted that Selick did take advantage of it, and not just utilized in a way that stuff popped out at you, he also used backgrounds and foregrounds very effectively and it was an experience rather than a viewing. I think Polar Express is the only other film to do this properly (in fact, it's probably the best 3D experience to date).


Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:01 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
When I saw Coraline in 3-D I just couldn't get into the film whatsoever. All I ever did was look around at the scenery and see if anything looked cool. The classes also gave me a headache and made my nose hurt. I was bored out of my mind and was looking at my cell phone to see the time way too often. I also kept taking the glasses off because of the discomfort and wanted to watch the movie normally, but it was too blurry so I was screwed either way. I plan on watching it in 2-D so I can actually "watch" the darn thing.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:52 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Coraline was a decent film, whether seen in 3D or 2D.

But I think that exponents of the belief that 3D is the wave of the future -- and that it will replace regular movies in the same way that talkies replaced silent films -- are delusional. 3D can add to films, sure, but at best it’s basically just another special effect. And like erak has already written, at worst it’s a distraction. As far as I can see, 3D's applications as a storytelling tool are limited.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:59 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Why did Dreamworks put the movie in 3D for their press screenings? So a few sell-out critics can hand them quotes such as "visually dazzling!" or "a three-dimensional triumph!", while the rest (the other 90%) moan and groan about the effect (like they always have) and end up disliking the movie more than they would have? I know Katzenberg wanted to show off his pretty new "way" of how we'll be "seeing movies" right now, but isn't the 3D strictly for the regular audience? Are they that dense in thinking that the 3D will somehow convince film critics that it's better? I'm taking that Monsters Vs. Aliens uses 3D as a distraction rather than enhancing it like Coraline (there's a clip from a trailer where a guy paddles a ping pong ball towards the screen, really Dreamworks?!), and so screening it in 3D for critics is like asking for terrible reviews.

I really hope Pixar knows what they are doing with their 3D, because if not there might be a rough review for "Up" ahead.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:08 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Ryan wrote:
I really hope Pixar knows what they are doing with their 3D, because if not there might be a rough review for "Up" ahead.


I hope so too. But I have more faith in Pixar than in Dreamworks.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:24 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Not sure why people are slagging Coraline in 3D. I thought that film used it subtly and effectively. I did not find it distracting, and have not found the 3D effect distracting since the first time I saw it used (except when movies use it to draw attention to the effect itself).

I'm disappointed that apparently Monsters Vs. Aliens decided to use it for evil instead of good.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:11 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3151
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Ryan wrote:
Why did Dreamworks put the movie in 3D for their press screenings?

I really hope Pixar knows what they are doing with their 3D, because if not there might be a rough review for "Up" ahead.


There are five press screenings locally for MvA: 3-D, IMAX 3-D, IMAX 3-D, 3-D, and (finally) 2-D. I have to see the movie again before finalizing my review.

With respect to Up, if possible I will see it in 2-D. The only way I'll see it in 3-D is if that's the only format in which it is offered to the press, which is not out of the question.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:02 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
I guess I'm going to be the first person here who has to admit to liking the latest Digital 3D trend. To me it makes some movies that are kind of lacking a little better because of the "amusement park" factor. 3D made My Bloody Valentine 3D into a nice fun amusement park ride, I was able to forget about the bad acting and horror cliches, because I put myself into a mindframe that I was going to experience a ride, and I got that out of it, so I was happy. If I saw it in 2D, i really don't think I would've liked the movie as much.


Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:53 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Blace wrote:
When I saw Coraline in 3-D I just couldn't get into the film whatsoever. All I ever did was look around at the scenery and see if anything looked cool. The classes also gave me a headache and made my nose hurt. I was bored out of my mind and was looking at my cell phone to see the time way too often. I also kept taking the glasses off because of the discomfort and wanted to watch the movie normally, but it was too blurry so I was screwed either way. I plan on watching it in 2-D so I can actually "watch" the darn thing.


Maybe you were just bored. I was bored in the 2D. :lol:


Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:25 am
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
I agree with those that have stated that 3D, while having the potential to be used as more than just a gimmick with some movies, will not become a development in film along the lines of color film or pre-recorded sound.

Ratel wrote:
Ryan wrote:
I really hope Pixar knows what they are doing with their 3D, because if not there might be a rough review for "Up" ahead.


I hope so too. But I have more faith in Pixar than in Dreamworks.


Likewise. I've yet to see a Pixar film that wasn't excellent at worst, and a modern-day classic at best.


Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:55 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
"May the Force be With Him"

Why?

Didn't you Jim say in one of your Reelthoughts earlier, that his milking of his fans was sheer greediness? How many versions of star wars are there? How many times have people shelled out? And what are the differences in version? Do we now need yet another version of Star Wars episodes 1-6?

I am one of the rare breed - who never really liked the whole Star Wars Saga. What exactly is there other than eye candy? Where is the science fiction other than space travel, amazing starships, CGI battles, weird creatures? How about science fiction like Blade Runner? And what makes science fiction different from fantasy? Both are products of imagination. So how about Lord Of the Rings (give me an orc any day over jar jar binks)

How would you differentiate Star wars episode 2 and 3 from Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions (other than "story")?.

Maybe this view is extreme, and i am sure there are a lot of you who love Star Wars, and i respect that. And most likely if Episodes 1 - 6 come in 3D, it will be another big business for Mr. Lucas, but would it really add any value to the films?


Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:49 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
3-D works best when delivered in small doses ala Disney or Universal Theme Parks.


Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:58 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
Coraline used 3D flawlessly. It made everything, especially the scenes that took place in the parallel universe, pop, saturating the viewer's eyes. It reassured me of 3D's potential. Not sure if it will ever live up to it.


Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:13 pm
Post Re: March 12, 2009: "3-D Revisited"
I read an interesting article in a newspaper yesterday. According to this article, the most important factor regarding the success of the new 3D format is the porn industry! The article claimed that internet piracy of 3D movies is not feasible and that free downloads are a big economic concern for the porn industry, therefore, the porn "filmmakers" are very interested in adopting a new format to combat this problem. The article also stated that, ultimately, it was the porn industry which decided the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Could this be true?


Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:28 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr