. . .and, ANY interest I had in going to see "The Avengers" is now gone

[stevapalooza]

Disney announced it's converting the film to 3D in Post.

no thank you.

if it wasn't FILMED in 3D, then I don't want to see a crappy conversion (ala "Clash of the Titans")

guess I'll just see it in 2D on DVD when it comes out.

What, you don't like wearing public glasses?

[Spiffy]

When movies are available in both 2d and 3d, some theatres with certain digital projectors do not switch lenses when they go from 3d to 2d, due to the difficulty and the risk of damaging the very expensive lenses. Because of how the 3d lenses work, this leaves the 2d films far too dark. Bert's not crazy, the rest of you are just fortunate enough to have theatres around that either haven't upgraded or actually do the switch like they're supposed to.

See, the difference I always heard about wasn't anything like lenses--it was the screen. Silvered vs. white. I hadn't really been thinking about this the first time I answered, but a lot of it came back to me since then.

2D movies started out with silvered screens 100 years ago (that's why we call it "the silver screen" when talking about movies overall).

Why did they use silver? Because silver is more reflective. But it switched over to white eventually because projectors got brighter, and silver had always had the unfortunate side effect that while it was bright head on, it was far dimmer at an angle. Something I STILL believe is true now that 3D movies are typically shown on silvered screens, but I imagine it would be even MORESO if you were sitting watching a 2D movie on a screen put up for 3D projectors. You could be the guy in the middle of the theater and be perfectly happy, or the guy off to one side, and it would all look too dim to you.

[Phantom Eagle]

There was a problem with theaters not removing the polarizing filter when showing 2D films on projectors set up for 3D, but Thor and Cap both looked fine to me in 2D last summer.

There are a few articles on the web telling you how to tell the difference. If the theater doesn't remove the filter and the showing is too dark, I say educate the manager while asking for your money back.

link

link

[Ryan Elliott]

Hyperbole!

[The Xenos]

Still wouldn't make him a WASP, though, with p standing for protestant, and all that >_>

That was kinda my joke, that it was the P that he wasn't, not the white or even the Anglo Saxon. Plus the idea of Thor being Catholic struck me as funny.

[CutterMike]

Still wouldn't make him a WASP, though, with p standing for protestant, and all that >_>

Know what I would love? If Captain America was Jewish.

Well, WAsp, then -- he was protesting against the King of Gods in the first reel... And surely, being the lusty "Frat-Boy of the Gods", we can assume that young Thor left some bits of himself in the bloodline of the Angles and Saxons -- Germanic, all, and followers of Thunor, another name for Thor.

Thus, by strict logic, we can see that Thor was a WAsp: A White, Angle-siring protestant. Q.E.D.

[Cam63]

Thor was mainly a guy who liked to hammer things out.

[bert]

I'll see it in 2D.

I've been a 3D refuser for a while. I made an exception for Hugo because everyone said how great it was in 3D, but the whole time I was watching it I was saying to myself, everything that's good here could be done just as well by a great cinematographer... Jack Cardiff was doing it 70 years ago... and all the rest is just gimmickry, like the snow in your face.

So it's strictly 2D for me from now on.

Interesting.

We saw Hugo *because* it was filmed (by Scorsese) IN 3D -- that was the entire selling point for us.

and We agreed, that the only reason the film works as well as it does (and it definitely has some problems -- mainly with pacing), is due to the 3D.
We all felt the film would have been much worse if it were in 2D.

those wonderful 3D tracking shots thru the corridors, and thru the steam is what saved this C- film, and moved it up to an enjoyable B grade.

(just our opinion, of course).


again, I reiterate, I have no issue with 3D, if the movie was FILMED that way. (hell, we LOVED Piranha 3D, mainly for this reason). It's the up-converts (and films that show in both 2D & 3D) that I have the theatre issues with.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Avatar's 3D, special effects, and cinematography was only thing decent about an otherwise terrible movie.

[Tetsuo_man]

Interesting.

We saw Hugo *because* it was filmed (by Scorsese) IN 3D -- that was the entire selling point for us.

and We agreed, that the only reason the film works as well as it does (and it definitely has some problems -- mainly with pacing), is due to the 3D.
We all felt the film would have been much worse if it were in 2D.

those wonderful 3D tracking shots thru the corridors, and thru the steam is what saved this C- film, and moved it up to an enjoyable B grade.

(just our opinion, of course).


again, I reiterate, I have no issue with 3D, if the movie was FILMED that way. (hell, we LOVED Piranha 3D, mainly for this reason). It's the up-converts (and films that show in both 2D & 3D) that I have the theatre issues with.

Sorry to break it to you bert but Piranha 3d was up converted. Straight from the director's mouth: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment...alexandre.html

It became an obvious choice: To create an even bigger immersion for the audience inside the water, with piranha coming at you, flying at you, we needed 3-D. It was a very quick, five-minute phone call to Bob Weinstein. Shooting on the water made the real 3-D shoot impossible. The reflection of the sun on the water creates a different lighting, which breaks 3-D. So we had to change to conversion, which is still amazing because you have full freedom. We started converting in November, and when we stop talking I’ll still be working. Conversion has a bad rep because of the marketing, but it’s a good process.

Bolded parts in bold by me.