3D movies, just a novelty to sell tickets?

Post Reply New Topic

Disney animations tend to be great in 3D, however they still aren't up to par with Sony when it comes to shooting non animated film.

Anything that uses fusion camera technology is good, Resident Evil Afterlife, Avatar, Sanctum and The Three Musketeers. Underworld Awakening had good 3D which was comparable to these titles as well so if you think 3D is a novelty, I suggest you watch any of the titles mentioned above.

Does anyone remember the old green and red glasses. Now that was terrible 3d has come a long way since then.

the present state of the consumer art leaves something to be desired. it is generally dim and coarse compared with the best of 2D. it needs more work, and i am thinking by the time they get the bugs out of it, that somebody will have invented glasses-free 3D by then.

I find most 3D movies a novelty, but found the 3D in Prometheus was perfect. It looked real and added a nice depth to things. Apparently it was shot in 3d. I'm going to see it again.

It is possible to make TV sized 3d displays that do not need glasses (these will have limited viewing angles)

For cinema sized screens (where [good] 3d will be a lot more impressive) it would be a lot more difficult to have 3d without glasses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing

Anaglyph 3d (in a far more advanced form) is used for the Dolby 3d Cinema system. It uses far more advanced filters than the simple primary colour filters. Unfortunately the glasses are far more expensive than polarised ones (so they need to be collected/washed), and the light loss due to the filters is very high. Since it does not require a silver screen it does not degrade the 2d image.

I agree that 3D is something of a gimmick, designed for selling movie tickets. But then again, movies in general are just gimmicks designed for selling tickets.

I've not seen Avatar in 3D, and I don't think that I have seen any film filmed in 3D. The best 3D film that I saw was Tron: Legacy. But you are right, the image is rather dim, and there's an added complication in that I wear glasses, so I have to wear the provided 3D visor over them.

However, I shall be going to watch my first 3D-filmed movie today: Prometheus.

When I was referring to Disney 3d I meant stuff I saw in Disney World 15-20 years ago. The only 3d movie I saw since my late teens/early 20s was Saw 3d.

Does anybody remember watching "Friday the 13th Part 3" in 3-D?

That would have been awesome. I was only an infant when it came out, so I missed watching it on the big screen.

But seriously, 3-D was a fad then, and 3-D is a fad now. It is not the new wave of cinema. It is a gimmick. Some films look great in it. Some films do not. But it is a gimmick that can supposedly justify a $15 matinee cinema ticket for anybody who is willing to pay for it.

Tron and Prometheus aren't that great in 3D compared to movies such as Resident Evil Afterlife, Avatar or anything else that uses Fusion camera technology.

Oh right, I've heard that's still really good, my brother went to Disneyland a little while ago and said the 3D was amazing.

I think people should be more open minded towards 3D at least until they have seen five to ten films in 3D instead of just one. I don't think 3D is a passing fad and I think it's definitely here to stay this time.

Best examples of 3D
Avatar
Resident Evil Afterlife
Underworld Awakening
The Three Musketeers
The Grand Canyon Adventure
Hubble 3D
Thor

Bad Examples of 3D
Immortals
Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance
Clash of the Titans
Friday the 13th Part 3
The Nightmare before Christmas

I have to disagree, upon watching Prometheus. The 3D wasn't as distracting, it felt natural, and actually looked good enough to justify the ticket price. Of course, dunno what 3D Avatar is like, so can't compare.

judder is AWFUL in 3D

If you haven't seen a film shot in fusion camera technology, it would be hard to make a comparison. Certain scenes are amazing such as when Michael activates the star map but the 3D scenes are only brief in the film, I don't think it's a bad example of 3D by any means though.

Of course it's a gimmick to make money. The only "3d" movie I ever saw in a theater was Tim Burton's rendition of Alice in Wonderland. The only reason we went to see it was because it had the 3d effect to it. If it was my choice we wouldn't gone to see it.

I can remember seeing 3D at a theme park (I can't recall which one) as a child and the images really popping right out into the audience. That was the experience I was expecting when they started showing 3D films at the cinema.

However, having seen a few when they first started doing them, I found that the 3D effects were actually quite minimal. I also found them really hard work to watch. I know not everyone has that problem, but for me I felt that I was straining my eyes and had a headache by the end of the film.

The cinemas where I live usually have the option to see the films in 2D, so I now make sure I go to those showings instead - and save myself a couple of pounds at the same time. I think it's probably just a matter of personal preference though.

I think some films are meant to be seen in 3D, and others are not. I saw Tron: Legacy in 3D and thought it made it really fun, but I saw The Avengers in 3D and didn't notice anything different about the film. At all. There were no 3d moments; it just looked funny when you took your glasses off. I understand the stepup from old 3d movies that you could only see at an amusmant park, and it looks good ocasionally, like with Tron or Avatar, but most of the time yeah, it's just a way to make you pay more for a perfectly good 2D movie.