 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the film in 3D and it added nothing too the film overall, and in the action scenes it was actually distracting at times.
See it in 2D if you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw it last night - in 2D - it's terrific. Really can't praise it properly without spoiling, which I'm not going to do, but I loved it. (Do the usual thing with Marvel films though i.e. don't leave during the credits.)
I have heard from people who saw in 3D that it isn't necessary and doesn't add a lot to the experience, so I'd say 2D is the best way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 30, 2013 - 2:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Cooper
(Member)
|
Nope. 2D for me all the way, now and forever.
Is that because you only have one eye?
Both are fully intact, but 3D does not offer the same convenience as my eyes.
Your eyes can conveniently extract two, distinct fields of visual information from a static, single frame, 2D source?
3D turns wonderful imagery into side show cutouts fit only for the circus. It lowers the quality of the entertainment and offers zero enhancement.
Doesn't it depend on the technology utilized, the skill and artistry of implementation? What about the objectives of the film? There's not much call or need for My Dinner With Andre 3D, but if a film is designed to work best in, is composed for 3D, your argument could be reverse engineered: The 2D counterpart would look flat by comparison, lower the quality of the entertainment and offer zero enhancement. And it would betray the original intent of the filmmakers.
I have seen this principle in action. Something like "Resident Evil: Afterlife," for example--love it, loathe it or lump it--is intendedly a visceral, sensory, stereo image experience. Its strengths are not narrative. Its reason to be is immersion in another world and the intensity and texture the extra dimensionality shooting in 3D brings to the table. I have seen the 2D version and shrugged it off. The 3D Blu pops, envelops, grabs...and thrills.
It's great for distracting the little ones with pretty colors, but hasn't improved the art form one iota.
Seems like you're only looking at 3D as en embellishment of 2D. But at what point does an emerging art form earn the right to be regarded as its own thing, with its own objectives?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 30, 2013 - 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
mastadge
(Member)
|
But at what point does an emerging art form earn the right to be regarded as its own thing, with its own objectives?
Oh-ho-ho, trying to steer this thread into lockdown territory are we?! 
I have no problem with 3D per se, but I so rarely see it implemented well that I'm not willing to give it the benefit of the doubt yet in theaters -- especially in films that were filmed in 2D, because I have yet to see an good post-conversion. As for Resident Evil or My Bloody Valentine (or even, for instance, Avatar) -- I don't care how good the 3D is, really, or how well it's used, when the movie is so stupid. To quote George Lucas, a special effect without a story is a very boring thing. If the movie's a stinker, an extra level of visual depth is (probably) not enough to save it for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 30, 2013 - 4:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BobJ
(Member)
|
Nope. 2D for me all the way, now and forever.
Is that because you only have one eye?
Both are fully intact, but 3D does not offer the same convenience as my eyes. 3D turns wonderful imagery into side show cutouts fit only for the circus. It lowers the quality of the entertainment and offers zero enhancement.
It's great for distracting the little ones with pretty colors, but hasn't improved the art form one iota.
I was joking about the eye (given your avatar of SP) but seriously, 3D hasn't improved the art form? Hmmm, yet another thing you and I are poles apart on Storyteller.
I knew you were, we tend to have a banter so I was embellishing a bit more than normal with the "for the little ones". But in all honesty, I do not believe it's added anything to the art form. I just do not see it's appeal, nor feel it enhances any aspect of the experience. In fact, it takes away from it for me. Uncomfortable glasses, darker image, for what?
It's just not for me. To all else, enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
