|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 17, 2015 - 2:55 PM
|
|
|
By: |
The Thing
(Member)
|
Final Destination 3D was the first one that I thought used it effectively, with proper in-your-face effects. Avatar looked nice, but the 3D just felt like an effect to add layering and depth, rather than providing any additional benefit. The last film i saw in 3D was Gravity, which was very good. Piranha 3D was crap. I heard Pacific Rim was great in 3D, so wish I'd seen that. I don't really bother with 3D now that the novelty has worn off, and I resent paying extra when I can enjoy the same film in 2D, unless the 3D adds something integral to the visual experience. Cinema is already too expensive, without adding even more to my ticket price. And I only really think it works if you sit closer to the screen, where the effect comes out at you, and then passes you out of your field of vision. Otherwise, if you're sat too far back, you still see everything vanish once it hits the edges of the screen, meaning it's all still in front of you instead of surrounding you.
|
|
|
|
|
'Waste of time. The future of visual media may well be 3D but it'll relate to holographs and new forms. For cinema it's a nonsense. When 3D holograph decks become commonplace, the notion of timeline and drama will not be relevant. Without the timeline there is no drama. Drama is about editing all possible viewpoints into ONE viewpoint. It'll not change cinema, it's for something else as yet not born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 17, 2015 - 3:22 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
I like 3D movies. Actual native shot 3D movies as opposed to the ones done in post-conversion which often (not always) results in minimal depth and add little. But when a movie is shot for 3D and blocked and edited properly, it can be visually stunning. No, I don't like those shots that linger on conveying a 3D effect (like poking a stick at you or throwing something at you), that actually takes me out of the movie if too much stress is put on it. But when an image is composed in such a way that it plays around with the focus and you can still marvel at the detail of the surroundings, it's a neat experience. It really pushes the illusion that film and special effects create to another level. If it's just there like a filter or an afterthought (read marketing ploy), there is no purpose to have it in the first place and it ends up spoiling a perfectly fine 2D movie. I enjoyed the 3D used in the Hobbit trilogy, Prometheus, Dredd, ... and to my surprise even the 3D in 50s Creature from the Black Lagoon looked stunning. Gravity, Avatar, ... very beautiful 3D movies. The latter I still need to get on blu-ray, also intend to get Pacific Rim. I do still have Dante's "The Hole 3D" that I picked up for 3 euro to check out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love it, and have since the 1950s. The problem with most 3D, today, is that it's really 2.5. Film makers, today really cannot compete with those of the 1950s, or even the '80s. Plus, films today don't know how to be still. 3D can add to a film. It's the overuse of edits that hamper films, today. Especially, those in 3D. Also, more 3D films are 2D conversions, which don't hold a candle to native 3D films. Still, there are some films where the 3D is excellent, including both JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH and JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, DISNEY'S A CHRISTMAS CAROL, JACK THE GIANT SLAYER, HANSEL AND GRETL, DOLPHIN TALE, YOGI BEAR, THE FINAL DESTINATION, and others. There are even a few good 2D to 3D conversions, like TITANIC (which I think plays better in 3D than it does in 2D); and JURASSIC PARK, where the 3D adds the depth the deplorable characters lack. I love 3D! I just wish directors would stop being afraid of it, and really use it to its fullest effect, like film makers of yore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like it, but not how it's done. Movies today use 3D much as they often use music: as a (seemingly) non-stop, ever-present element I tune out after a few minutes. Just as music should only be used to enhance a scene, so too should 3D be used to enhance an important (or fun) visual moment. Otherwise the rest of the film should be in 2D, in my opinion. I also think the fact almost all movies are converted, rather than natively shot in 3D, contributes to this as a substitute for artistic purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most outstanding use of 3D I've seen in a movie was in the Vincent Price classic HOUSE OF WAX of 1953. The new movies with 3D either leave me cold or are downright annoying (Star Trek: Into Darkness e.g. I found headache-inducing).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|