The case against 3-d movies

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Mordeci, Mar 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

  2. bluegrey

    bluegrey Antiquities Friend

    There will be a surcharge for movies showing in 3D and I know instinctually that I will get instantaneous motion sickness! :puke: In Roger Ebert vernacular.......Two thumbs down!
     
  3. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    I've never seen a movie in 3D and would like to see Avatar in 3D but am too worried about rent to fork over $20 for a movie.
     
  4. Sapphire

    Sapphire Well-Known Member

  5. Sapphire

    Sapphire Well-Known Member

    I just read the article. It's good. This part made me laugh:

    "The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake."

    :laugh:
     
  6. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I never particularly cared for it to be honest. I've seen a few movies in 3D and it never did anything for me. If anything, I found it a bit annoying. I suppose I can understand the appeal though.
     
  7. morning rush

    morning rush Well-Known Member

  8. KittyGirl

    KittyGirl Well-Known Member

    It's an 'experience' < watching a movie in 3-D.
    I like the idea of making movies 3-D at the theatre for a few reasons; but mostly because it's much much harder for people to pirate movies and make money off of them when they're recording them from a 3-D screen.

    If you do not like the idea of watching in 3D, there's always the option of seeing it in digital, right?
    Bigger movies tend to have both formats.
    Same goes with the DVD release-- my bloody valentine was released with a 2 side disc, allowing the viewer to chose whether to watch in HD or 3D.

    I didn't read the article- that's all just my opinion based on my own experience...
     
  9. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

  10. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    Glad to see some people agree with me on this, I posted the exact same thing on another website and got insulted for it. The reason I ask is because I love film's, and one point I wanted to go into films on the creative side of the process, as it turns out, the school I was looking at was refocusing their entire cariculum from 2-d to 3-d film making because that is what the studio's want, and now there is about a years worth of out of work film makers who can't find a job because they don't know how to (and most of them don't want to) incorporate the 3-d technology. In my opinion the worst part about it is that for the most part 3-d technology is just a gimmick to make people spend more money and it really takes away from the film. I remeber seeing Alice in Wonderland and thinking this would be better in 2-d, so I saw it again in 2-d and I liked it even better. I am just kind of venting because ever since Avatar the movie industry has been going down this path, and I just think it is bad for movies and film making in general.
     
  11. PandorasToybox

    PandorasToybox Well-Known Member

    Although Avatar was done in 3D, the actual 3D-ing part itself was done poorly. There was limited...er stick-outage. It seemed mostly 2D
     
  12. JohnADreams

    JohnADreams Well-Known Member

    He makes some good points but in the end I don't go to see movies in order to be sucked into the story and treat the scenes as if it they are really happening. I just go to have fun, nothing more serious or involving than that. If 3D effects make a movie more fun for me to watch (as it did with Avatar) then I'll fork over the extra cash for that experience.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.