Who killed 3D movies?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

When you're coming out with things like Piranha 3D, I really don't give a damn.

Apart from a few movies, 3D has not 'added' anything to the experience. I saw Xmen First class in 3D. Great movie, but the '3D' Added nothing to the experience.

You sure you're talking about the right movie?

Here's what director Matthew Vaughn said about 3D

Right now, there's a big push for 3D, and any superhero or comic book film seems to come out in 3D. Were you asked to go for 3D by the studio?

I'm sure if we had more time, they might have brought it up. I'm not a big fan of 3D. I think Avatar worked, because they really shot and designed it. I think half these films you see, it just doesn't feel like they've designed every shot. They have something coming towards the camera every now and then.

But that's what I loved about Avatar. They made it to give it more depth, and you can tell that Cameron knows what 3D means. But when they do that post conversion ####...

And I find the glasses annoying, and my kids hate it as well. I sit with them and they take the glasses off halfway through. I'm like, "No, you've got to watch it with them on," and they don't care.

I don't know, maybe I should be more of a fan, but for me, Avatar's the only 3D movie where I became immersed in the world. I think Cameron called it 'RealD' and he's right. I think Hollywood's ####ing up 3D now, because they're cheapening the process, so people aren't going to care any more.

Also, I can't seem to find any evidence of a 3D release for First Class.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by awildermode

use of 3d is like use special effects. you cannot base you movie on gimmicks and expect people flock to see it. the foundation of any movie is story telling. if your story and/or story telling sucks, no amount of special effects or 3d is going to help.

Not true. Evidence: Avatar.

That movie sucked, but apparently IMAX and 3D were what really made the experience.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by SebC

You sure you're talking about the right movie?

Here's what director Matthew Vaughn said about 3D

Hah, I thought it was 1st class, maybe I was totally out of it. Could have sworn I saw it in 3D.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not true. Evidence: Avatar.

That movie sucked, but apparently IMAX and 3D were what really made the experience.

If you thought Avatar sucked, I honestly can't comprehend how you can enjoy 99% of the action movies out there.

Even a movie like Xmen First Class, which had some great performances, wasn't exactly a best picture type film.

Wanted sucked, Transformers sucked but Avatar? Sure it was a tad cookie cutter but it was far from crap.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If you thought Avatar sucked, I honestly can't comprehend how you can enjoy 99% of the action movies out there.

Even a movie like Xmen First Class, which had some great performances, wasn't exactly a best picture type film.

Wanted sucked, Transformers sucked but Avatar? Sure it was a tad cookie cutter but it was far from crap.

I'm not going to turn this into an Anti-Avatar Rant, but suffice it to say that you'd have to 'Clockwork Orange' me to watch that turd ever again.

I saw it on DVD and thus there was no 'Wow-Factor' but I just despised that movie.

I could sit through Transformers, obviously not a great film, Transformers 2 may not have been the worst movie ever, but its in the conversation. Wanted was garbage, and I havent been able to finish it. Well, I shouldnt say that, I havent had the inspiration to finish it.

As for 3D, a buddy and I went and saw 'Conan the Barbarian' in 3D. That was grim, but it was a bad movie in a funny way, so it had some redeeming quality in that I didnt feel it took itself too seriously as a film, something that cant be said about Avatar.

Anyways, 3D sucks. What, its supposed to be so awesome because some of the foreground scenery is in 3D? Who cares? 'Ooh, that fence and hedge look like they're closer to me!! Whoo!' I could have very easily done without it and it's pretentious 'Buddy Holly' glasses!

You call it '3D,' I call it 'out of focus.'

[Resolute 14]

Going to agree with Locke. I saw Avatar in the theatre, and it was pretty damn amazing in 3D. I saw it on DVD, and it was plain, preachy and ridiculous. At best, the movie itself is average. It was the effects that distracted you.

Avatar was an advertisement for 3D with a pedestrian storyline tacked on. Everything that followed were movies of varying quality with 3D tacked on. 3D failed because a good gimmick was poorly employed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Going to agree with Locke. I saw Avatar in the theatre, and it was pretty damn amazing in 3D. I saw it on DVD, and it was plain, preachy and ridiculous. At best, the movie itself is average. It was the effects that distracted you.

Avatar was an advertisement for 3D with a pedestrian storyline tacked on. Everything that followed were movies of varying quality with 3D tacked on. 3D failed because a good gimmick was poorly employed.

Which is exactly why it failed when they first tried it years ago. Its a gimmick that doesnt add anything substantial.

Hell, they've had 3D features at Disneyland and places like that for years. For 30 minutes it entertains kids long enough for their parents to get a breather, for a feature film its a waste.

[GirlySports]

I thought 3D pron was supposed to be the next big thing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

Which is exactly why it failed when they first tried it years ago. Its a gimmick that doesnt add anything substantial.

Hell, they've had 3D features at Disneyland and places like that for years. For 30 minutes it entertains kids long enough for their parents to get a breather, for a feature film its a waste.

I think 3D could have worked if they did more movies with the approach to Avatar and filmed them as 3D movies. That said, I think the industry knew it couldn't ask theatres to invest in upgrading their equipment and then give them nothing. So all of the cheap effects that amounted to little more than the old red-blue technology being re-used were rushed out to justify the expense.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think 3D could have worked if they did more movies with the approach to Avatar and filmed them as 3D movies. That said, I think the industry knew it couldn't ask theatres to invest in upgrading their equipment and then give them nothing. So all of the cheap effects that amounted to little more than the old red-blue technology being re-used were rushed out to justify the expense.

I guess thats the issue. I'd be open to it if it added some value, but I find that theres an additional cost and that the 3D gimmick is actually negative value.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by saskflames96

The only good 3D movie I've seen?

Jackass 3D. The Poo Cocktail scene was the best.

Originally Posted by stang

^^^^ I dunno that shooting dildo was good too!

Jackass 3D was the best 3D movie I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Going to agree with Locke. I saw Avatar in the theatre, and it was pretty damn amazing in 3D. I saw it on DVD, and it was plain, preachy and ridiculous. At best, the movie itself is average. It was the effects that distracted you.

Avatar was an advertisement for 3D with a pedestrian storyline tacked on. Everything that followed were movies of varying quality with 3D tacked on. 3D failed because a good gimmick was poorly employed.

Couldn't agree more... Avatar in the IMAX 3D.. I was blown away.. convinced I hadn't seen a better picture in my life. I raved about it, I think I gave it a glowing review here on Calgarypuck.

Watched it at home when it came out.. bleh.. what a ordinary piece of normal garbage.

[Stay Golden]

The studios could not resist the lure of higher per ticket boxoffice numbers. Just slapped the 3D tag on a bunch of movies that were not even shot in 3D. The technology was initially revolutionairy when it was actually shot to be 3D but now they have just abused it. Really they are now cheating movie fans out of an extra 3 bucks and delivering nothing added in return.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Locke

3D sucks. What, its supposed to be so awesome because some of the foreground scenery is in 3D? Who cares? 'Ooh, that fence and hedge look like they're closer to me!! Whoo!' I could have very easily done without it and it's pretentious 'Buddy Holly' glasses!

You call it '3D,' I call it 'out of focus.'

Pop-out (generally) sucks (typically because its done completely wrong), but depth behind the screen is awesome. One of my other pet peeves with 3D movies is that the shallow focal planes that are used in 2D to show depth become redundant in 3D, but they're still there. A movie would have to be 3D-only to avoid this. Whereas 3D photographers often make their photos sharp front-to-back, and it's fantastic.

Even Avatar was guilty of sticking out of focus tree branches (for example) right in front of your face. It adds nothing and isn't even technically "correct".

For another perspective on 3D, here's Joe Johnston (who directed Captain America): http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansi...a/news/?a=7530

"Conversion has gotten a bad rap," he differs, "because of pictures that have done it badly. If you shoot the movie and decide at the 11th hour to convert it to 3D, you don't have the necessary information to process what we call the 'left eye'. We're shooting a whole separate pass on every setup to record the information necessary to convert to 3D in a seamless and undetectable way. When conversion is done right, you can't tell the difference between it and full 3D. Everyone touts Avatar as the new standard for 3D. It's beautifully done to be sure, but it wasn't entirely shot in full 3D. The filmmakers wisely chose to shoot about 30 to 35 percent of the picture in 2D and convert. I challenge anyone, myself included, to watch the picture and spot the 2D conversions.

I didn't notice parts of Avatar were conversions (did notice some flaws in the CGI though, which might have been conversion-related), but I did note some conversion errors in Captain America, despite Johnston's supposedly "undetectable" technique.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Going to agree with Locke. I saw Avatar in the theatre, and it was pretty damn amazing in 3D. I saw it on DVD, and it was plain, preachy and ridiculous. At best, the movie itself is average. It was the effects that distracted you.

Avatar was an advertisement for 3D with a pedestrian storyline tacked on. Everything that followed were movies of varying quality with 3D tacked on. 3D failed because a good gimmick was poorly employed.

Being the first new true 3D movie turned Fern Gully into a $Billion box office smash.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Being the first new true 3D movie turned Fern Gully into a $Billion box office smash.

/Pocahontas

Spoiler!

[Buff]

I'm really hoping that 3D just goes away. It has potential to be cool, but it really doesn't make movies better. Well written stories make movies better. I haven't like a single 3D movie because it was in 3D. I've only ever wished that I watched it in 2D instead.

[JohnnyB]

I don't really see much point at all in going to a movie theatre to catch a flick unless it's offering me something that I can't get at home. Pretty much everything a cinema offers except for the 3D is available to me at home with lower cost and greater convenience. 3D is actually a reason for me to go to a cinema to see something. Like the last Harry Potter, which I thought had great 3D in it that really did contribute to the experience.

If 3D goes away, I'll probably just stop going to cinemas again because a good story line is going to be good no matter the size of the screen and everything else a cinema offers I can get for myself in greater comfort at home.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Being the first new true 3D movie turned Fern Gully into a $Billion box office smash.

Dances with Smurfs

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I don't really see much point at all in going to a movie theatre to catch a flick unless it's offering me something that I can't get at home. Pretty much everything a cinema offers except for the 3D is available to me at home with lower cost and greater convenience. 3D is actually a reason for me to go to a cinema to see something. Like the last Harry Potter, which I thought had great 3D in it that really did contribute to the experience.

If 3D goes away, I'll probably just stop going to cinemas again because a good story line is going to be good no matter the size of the screen and everything else a cinema offers I can get for myself in greater comfort at home.

I agree with this. Showing a movie is no longer the big draw to get butts in the seats. I would say Avatar was an average movie, but hot damn it was an A+ theatre experience. Also, people still go to live theatre for an experience that cannot be replicated in your own home.

Give me something that isn't overly gimmicky like a lot of the 3D out there, and make it a full experience.

[Northendzone]

while 3D movies are neat, it can be a real PITA to wear those glasses......