3D Movies...Great Or Sucky?

**Gail Simone** · 09-02-2010, 04:21 AM

I'm not sure I care about 3d at all. I though Avatar was an asspain and part of it was the 3d.

What do you guys think?

**afroloq** · 09-02-2010, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Gail Simone

I'm not sure I care about 3d at all. I though Avatar was an asspain and part of it was the 3d.

What do you guys think?

Wasn't all that crazy about Avatar's story but I liked the effects...but you want to talk sucky 3D??

Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans!

...'nuff said

You want good 3D? Toy Story 3

I just don't feel vested enough in 3d to buy a 3D HDTV and all the extras.

**spidey_mon** · 09-02-2010, 04:25 AM

I never cared for 3D, the idea is quite pointless

**Gryphon** · 09-02-2010, 04:34 AM

Im not a fan of 3D movies.

**Kevin T Brown** · 09-02-2010, 04:34 AM

3D Movies...Great Or Sucky?

The answer to that is YES.

It really depends on the movie. It seems 3D works and looks a LOT better with computer generated cartoons than live action. I loved Avatar and though it looked very good in 3D, but the strongest 3D aspects of it were computer generated.

**Silent G** · 09-02-2010, 04:40 AM

Cheap sucky gimmick. If Hollywood wanted to put a gimmick back in to theaters they should have bet on Smell O Vision.

**Kevin T Brown** · 09-02-2010, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Silent G

Cheap sucky gimmick. If Hollywood wanted to put a gimmick back in to theaters they should have bet on Smell O Vision.

Nah, Feel Around is a much better option....

**Infra-Man** · 09-02-2010, 05:29 AM

So far, 3D has been irrelevant to my experience of movies. The depth effects haven't really wowed me that much to a point where I think it's a new step forward in cinematography--in fact, I think the ingenuity of lens choice in 2D manipulates depth more expertly and subtly--nor have I seen a movie where I've thought 3D was integral to the experience. And since it's estimated that up to 10% of the population cannot even experience stereoscopic 3D, its appeal and supposed benefits are lost on a lot of people.

I still believe that if filmmakers want to give audiences an immersive and unforgettable experience, then it will involve a compelling story, characters you care about, and a unique vision rather than the use of stereoscopic glasses.

EDIT:
One movie that I was glad to see balk at the trend of 3D-ification was Inception.

**Thequeerjock** · 09-02-2010, 05:37 AM

Depends on the film. Avatar looked pretty good, but I heard a lot of people stating that the 3D effects in the Last Airbender (unsurprisingly. It was an M Night Shamylan movie after all.) sucked.

**Gaelforce** · 09-02-2010, 05:43 AM

I saw Avatar in 3D and in 2D (Mom can't do 3D) and I found it much more enjoyable in 3D.

However, other movies like Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland didn't improve any with the 3D.

I think my favorite 3D movies are the ones where they use it on a more subtle level. I saw the animated movie Bolt in 3D and was blown away just by the opening shot - a very simple 'push' through the window from the street to see the puppy in the shop. It was very well done.

In general, I don't think movies benefit that much from the process, though I heard Pirhana was a lot of gimmicky fun (so was Brendan Fraser's Journey to the Center of the Earth a few years back - bad movie but the 3D there was kinda fun in places)