Is it really working for you ?

I went to see 2 different movies this weekend and to be honest one of them AVATAR didn't need it , because its such a nice story and the other one Clash of titans was dog shit based on 3D ...

After a while i noticed i get tired of the damn glasses on me and my vision gets tired after 70 minutes of using it , I also noticed the colors are darker than if you would be seeing a movie with your bare eyes .

fuck 3D!!!! :evil:

Re: 3d

Glasses got really annoying for me too....here is what Michael Bay and James Cameron have to say on 3d footage... [url]http://www.filmofilia.com/2010/03/24/michael-bay-and-james-cameron-against-3d-conversions/[/url]

Re: 3d

It's a great idea for presentation that's getting treated like a gimmick again, much like it has whenever it had a resurgence. As much as I'd like to believe James Cameron's predictions that this is the next step in our home media, there's not much quality control going on, and it's being applied to just about anything the studios can stick it to.

It has it's uses, but I'm still having a hard time believing that people are going to watch 3D movies over and over again. It's applicable only to certain genres.

Re: 3d

Its a topical debate at the moment for sure. I actually thought the story of Avatar was pants but the 3D aspects made it a great movie, it just looked so trippy in parts. I also saw UP in 3D which i thought worked well as its all animation.

I had my first look at a Sony 3DTV last week, it was impressive but i can't help but feel it is abit gimmacky. The shades do piss you off after awhile so i hope down the line they can develop a screen that you don't need to wear them, that makes more sense to me.

Re: 3d

One more attempt-of-the-desperate to bring back the crowds to the cinema, due to piracy and HD movies floating all over the web, great screens and tvs whose prices fall like autumn leaves so it's not hard to have a small home-cinema at these moments.. i guess they needed to do something which's not possible to have at home (still) and will make people wanna go to see new movies a bit away from their home. It's understandable, from one point.. ..on the other, i'm afraid we're all gonna suffer severe migraine if they continue to make every movie in 3D, which is completely stupid for me, animated movies are worth it, but some 10000 fellas riding on their horses .. umm, why? There's plenty of them anyway on the screen, i can barely see 5% of those poor extra-actors, 3D won't help 'em get more famous and it doesn't look better after all. I suffered from heavy headache after seing Avatar, barely stood it.. it's nice, but it aches for christ's sake and felt dizzy afterwards.

I'd say - yes 3D, it's worth it but pick wisely what you're gonna make 3D and what will be 3D out of fashion, or whatever. And do not make 3D movies longer than 90".. it hurts! :lol:

Re: 3d

same sh*t was said about black & white moving to color btw

Re: 3d

i doubt in the era of colour movies appearing they had the problem about ppl not visiting cinemas cuz its all possible to have due to numerous piracy links on the web and expencive home-cinema systems being available for home use too huh..

Re: 3d

^Then don't go see the films in 3d. [I] I'm not saying everyone has to be a fan of 3d[/I]... what I am saying is that[B] I am a fan of 3d [/B]:lol:

Martin Scorsese is set to follow James Cameron's Avatar by making his first 3D film. The director's latest project - an adaptation of Brian Selznick's bestselling children's novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, about a boy who lives in the walls of a Paris train station - is set for the multi-dimension treatment, according to Variety.

Set in the '30s, the film will star Sacha Baron Cohen as an inspector, Asa Butterfield as the titular Hugo, and Chloe Moretz - now best known as Hit Girl from the recent Kick-Ass - as a girl Hugo befriends.

The director has previously gone on record that he is "very excited" about the possibility of 3D, saying: "We see in depth, for the most part. We go to the theater - it’s in depth. Why couldn’t a film like Precious be in 3D? It should be.”

Re: 3d

3d video games...end of.

Re: 3d

I like 3D. I saw both Avatar and Clash of the Titans. However Avatar had noticeably better 3D quality. I felt Clash of the Titans was overpriced to pay $17.50 at ticket to watch mediocre 3D quality and mediocre movie. Would pay the ticket price to see Avatar quality movies in 3D.

Re: 3d

Clash of the Titans was converted to 3D after the fact. They didn't shoot it with 3d in mind. Something like Avatar- Cameron waited years to put in to production until they were able to develop the technology that would allow him to achieve his vision... and was shot and produced with that theater experience in mind.

My beef with 3d is that it's solely dependent on where you're seated in the theater. That dictates your experience. If you see a regular movie and you're in the front row, while not ideal, you can still figure out what is going on and see the picture relatively well. In the front row of a 3d flick however, the range of the glasses only goes so far and the whole experience can be ruined. Probably going to keep seeing a lot of 3d movies happening. It puts asses in the seats. I don't know metrics but I'm guessing tickets sales are up a bit.