Topic: Thoughts?

[addicted2dvd]

Will finally be able to see a 3D movie again! Matter of fact.... I think that is how I want to celebrate if it works... go see a movie in 3D!

[Kathy]

Here comes 3D! What 3D film should you watch if when you get your vision back?

Edit: We were saying the same thing at the same time!

[Dragonfire]

It would depend on when it was...there have been several 3D movies released over the summers in the last several years.  I'm not sure what could out this summer...depends on when you get the insurance and can get that done.
The best 3D movies I have seen have mostly been animated movies. 

[Achim]

Seeing real-life in 3D is obviously a greta plus. Movies are really not improved by 3D...

[GSyren]

I agree with Achim. 3D in movies is overrated. The only movie that I'd really like to see in 3D in a cinema is the original House of Wax with Vincent Price. I've never seen any of the 50's movies in 3D. Not sure if they were ever shown in 3D here in Stockholm, and if they were, I was too young to see them. I have seen some of the 80's movies, like Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th 3D and Parasite. I was not impressed. I don't go to the cinema much anymore, but I've seen some nature documentaries in active 3D. Still not terribly impressed.

[DSig]

Generally I agree.  I have seen a half dozen films in 3d but the only one that really worked for me was the film Avatar.  I saw it in 2 day and have it on blu-ray.  But have to say that 3d really worked for it.  It didn't have things flying at the audience (thus proving the marvels of 3d ) but the 3d was integrated into every basic scene of the film.  The 2d version didn't lose anything but the 3d was pretty marvelous. But I hate those films that have things poking out at you 

[Achim]

I thought Avatar had around three scenes where something was obviously being poked at the screen. And then there was this wonderful scene with those floating spore things. During the rest of the movie it was rather unobtrusive, to the point where it might be considered useless.

People keep saying that "dust" of some kind is usually impressive in 3D.

I only saw it in 2D, but apparently Gravity had quite impressive 3D, to the point where it almost improved the film...?

[DSig]

I think you hit the nail on the head with " ... During the rest of the movie it was rather unobtrusive ... ".  That is the way, for me, any feature should be.  CGI, music and 3D.  For me the 3d in Avatar was at first 'startling' but became such a feature of the film that, as you say, " ... might be considered useless ...".  To me it was just another pigment for a brilliant film

[Piffi]

I have to disagree with you guys. I watch a few 3D movies from time to time, (the latest one was Gravity) One of the better 3D movies i've seen. Same with Avatar. Amazing. But i see alot of people are very negative when it comes to 3D. Personally i think IF made correctly, the 3D efects and the visual efects are just amazing and sometimes breathtaking IMHO. If done poorly then it is not that good. But in general, i would say that i actually love 3D when made correctly.

[DJ Doena]

I have to disagree with you guys. I watch a few 3D movies from time to time, (the latest one was Gravity) One of the better 3D movies i've seen. Same with Avatar. Amazing. But i see alot of people are very negative when it comes to 3D. Personally i think IF made correctly, the 3D efects and the visual efects are just amazing and sometimes breathtaking IMHO. If done poorly then it is not that good. But in general, i would say that i actually love 3D when made correctly.

Avatar was the first 3D movie I've ever watched. It sure looked amazing at first, but after 20 minutes or so, the effect wore off (for me) and I started to notice some slight disproportions (no, not with the Blue Indians, with people in general). They just looked thinner than they should in relation to their size. Also, the story of the movie couldn't really pull me in, so I sat there, watching Winnetou* in Space and wasn't impressed by it.

The next one was Clash of the Titans (remake), which was post-produced as 3D. But the bad effects had nothing to do with the movie itself, it was so bad, it's horrible.

After that I only watched 3D if there wasn't another choice and none of the movies impressed me all that much.

Luckily at least I don't get headaches from the 3D glasses.

*You'd probably call it Pocahontas in Space or Dances with Wolves in Space or The Last Samurai in Space.

[Piffi]

Well, no problem Sir 3D isnt for everyone. I see your points, valid points tho. I just dont agree on everything. Like Gravity, amazing 3D movie. Madagascar movies also great 3D. Ice Age did a bad job with the 3D, almost better in 2D. Avatar (for me) amazing job with the 3D. Even tho its almost 3D with the 2D. And the story\life of Pi. Amazing 3D. Harry Potter failed on 3D. But for some reason (unknown for me) they make the animated 3D movies so much better then the "live" 3D movies. Titanic, Harry Potter etc. With todays tecnhology they should make it even better. But what do i know? Some movies i really enjoy in 3D, and some movies they missed terrible with.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Thing is 3D is only an effect.
I yet have to find a movie that actually got improved by this effect (Means: A movie that wouldn't have worked in 2D too).

But actually I'm very conservative in this regard.
For me the last "effect" that actually improved the "Moving Pictures" was ... SOUND.
It surely helped a lot and really gave the story-telling a new dimension.

All other effects are mere gimmicks (Multi-channel-sound, colour, 3D, 4D (-> wonky chairs), etc.) that are more or less obsolete.
They may add to the enjoyment, but they don't actually add anything to the movie.

[addicted2dvd]

I got my new glasses! What do you all think? I not used to the small lenses!

[addicted2dvd]

But a big Thank You to Danae Cassandra for helping me out... picking out the frames and all!

 

[Rogmeister]

I like them.  They remind me a bit of my own glasses and I also use to have the big Elvis glasses.  I also like your new avatar pic.