3d movies

Gleeso_Finglas

Howdey folks...

I wasnt a big fan of 3d movies and felt it was a gimmick I could not wait to end..... however I got a new 3d tv and I am really enjoying the movies in 3d and especially documentaries.

Just wondering whats your take on 3d movies/games and what you dislike or recommend.

Son0vagun

I don't like 3D movies and I would not get a 3D TV.

Lamper.sffc

Personally most movies done in 3d didnt work bar a few. For the most part they never tried to create something different to what they tried years ago. So what was the point bringing it back beyond it being a gimmick.

The few that worked for me was Dredd (love that movie). Avatar did a good job too. Most of the rest iv seen didnt make enough of an effort to do something different.

Banjaxed82

3D is a gimmick and a money making racket, and has been since the birth of cinema.

While there are a select few (oh so very, very few) films that utilise 3D in any worthwhile way, 99% of films have no need for 3D, and like previous incarnations of 3D (1980's, 1950's, etc) it eventually is seen for what it is and slowly dies out.

TheIrishGrover

I have a 3D tele. It's impossible not to find a decent high-end tele that isn't 3D. I have one 3D movie that I got to try it out and was underwhelmed. Similarly underwhelmed in the cinema. 3D is a gimmick and, if the option is there, I always try to go to the 2D version. It's just a way to try to get people back into the cinema instead of downloading the movies.
They've pretty much given up on 3D television programming (If they ever really started). I mean do you really need to see Eastenders in 3D? AFAIK the last show BBC broadcast in 3D was Dr. Who. While it was better done than most (The 3D pictures looked decent) it didn't actually add anything to the show.

My 3D glasses are now gathering dust. Unable to even use them in the cinema as they are active and not the passive ones in the cinema.

TerrorFirmer

Too many films are shot in 2D and converted in post production, thus giving 'true' 3D a **** name. I love 3D movies, but in saying that, I mean genuine films that were shot in 3D - these post production efforts, which sadly form the bulk of 3D releases, are weak and are a discredit to the technology. Avatar showed what 3D could do, and could be, far too few films followed suit.

That said there are a few decent natively shot 3D movies out there. My Bloody Valentine, The Final Destination, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Saw 3D, Drive Angry, Harold and Kumar 3D, Prometheus, Dredd, to name but a few good quality 3d releases, even if the content isn't to all tastes.

shruikan2553

I dont see 3D, in dr who I could tell the paintings were in 3d but it seems to confuse my brain or something . Also find 3D to be too dark.

3D TVs dont suffer from the darkness issue (from my experience) but they make me feel nauseous after awhile.

Dude111

3D is garbage,I didnt ever like it!

Gleeso_Finglas

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

3D is a gimmick and a money making racket, and has been since the birth of cinema.

While there are a select few (oh so very, very few) films that utilise 3D in any worthwhile way, 99% of films have no need for 3D, and like previous incarnations of 3D (1980's, 1950's, etc) it eventually is seen for what it is and slowly dies out.

Lamper.sffc wrote: »

Personally most movies done in 3d didnt work bar a few. For the most part they never tried to create something different to what they tried years ago. So what was the point bringing it back beyond it being a gimmick.

The few that worked for me was Dredd (love that movie). Avatar did a good job too. Most of the rest iv seen didnt make enough of an effort to do something different.

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I have a 3D tele. It's impossible not to find a decent high-end tele that isn't 3D. I have one 3D movie that I got to try it out and was underwhelmed. Similarly underwhelmed in the cinema. 3D is a gimmick and, if the option is there, I always try to go to the 2D version. It's just a way to try to get people back into the cinema instead of downloading the movies.
They've pretty much given up on 3D television programming (If they ever really started). I mean do you really need to see Eastenders in 3D? AFAIK the last show BBC broadcast in 3D was Dr. Who. While it was better done than most (The 3D pictures looked decent) it didn't actually add anything to the show.

My 3D glasses are now gathering dust. Unable to even use them in the cinema as they are active and not the passive ones in the cinema.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Too many films are shot in 2D and converted in post production, thus giving 'true' 3D a **** name. I love 3D movies, but in saying that, I mean genuine films that were shot in 3D - these post production efforts, which sadly form the bulk of 3D releases, are weak and are a discredit to the technology. Avatar showed what 3D could do, and could be, far too few films followed suit.

That said there are a few decent natively shot 3D movies out there. My Bloody Valentine, The Final Destination, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Saw 3D, Drive Angry, Harold and Kumar 3D, Prometheus, Dredd, to name but a few good quality 3d releases, even if the content isn't to all tastes.

I know 3d is a gimmick but it can really add to a film if its done right. Avatar was 3d at its best however I tend to use the 3d for documentaries which is by far better to watch in 3d especially under water etc. Cave of forgotten dreams is excellent.

The hobbit in 3d so far has been a bit of a let down.
Personally I have taken quite a liking to the 3d but I still believe the script/screen play is pants then the movie is crap and no 3d will change the out come. However if the film is a good movie and it is 3d then ill get it in 3d.

Outkast_IRE

Life of Pi is excellent 3d.
Avatar excellent.
Gravity excellent.
Up excellent.


What all these movies have in common is that they were made with 3d in mind from day 1 using proper equipment etc. They also all had good directors who knew how to use the 3d to their advantage and not as a gimmick.

McLoughlin

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

3D is a gimmick and a money making racket, and has been since the birth of cinema.

While there are a select few (oh so very, very few) films that utilise 3D in any worthwhile way, 99% of films have no need for 3D, and like previous incarnations of 3D (1980's, 1950's, etc) it eventually is seen for what it is and slowly dies out.

3D died out in the past because cinemas didnt buy in the proper equipment to show them same as today allot of cinemas have a piss poor 3D set up.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Too many films are shot in 2D and converted in post production, thus giving 'true' 3D a **** name. I love 3D movies, but in saying that, I mean genuine films that were shot in 3D - these post production efforts, which sadly form the bulk of 3D releases, are weak and are a discredit to the technology. Avatar showed what 3D could do, and could be, far too few films followed suit.

Pure Rubbish there have been some great converted films and **** converted films. Look at the Pacific Rim, Wizard of Oz, Jurassic Park, Titantic all great converted films and Avatar is overrated with Hugo by Scorsese the best modern 3D film.


3D is a very very small niche market in a world were people still prefer DVDs. In Ireland its hard to get 3D movies in shops as all of the great stuff isn't available on sale here.

Gleeso_Finglas

I have yet to see pacific rim...and dred in 3d are they any use?

TerrorFirmer

McLoughlin wrote: »

Pure Rubbish there have been some great converted films and **** converted films. Look at the Pacific Rim, Wizard of Oz, Jurassic Park, Titantic all great converted films and Avatar is overrated with Hugo by Scorsese the best modern 3D film.

You're talking about the quality of the film rather than the technical 3D aspect of them. Titanic in 3D was just about passable but it was overall pretty poor in my opinion. Even my parents, who have little to no interest or understanding of 3D, were disappointed by it. It was nice to see it on the big screen again but as a 3D feature it was bad. I'm not meaning to say that every converted movie is bad, but the majority of them are definitely weak. Natively shot 3D movies do look superior, regardless of the quality of the movie itself.

I watch a huge amount of 3D material, also play games in 3D, and nothing beats that genuine feeling of immersion that proper 3D gives you.

I have yet to see pacific rim...and dred in 3d are they any use?

Both are good, PR is a conversion but it is one of the best, Del Toro himself said it was a good example of how a proper conversion can work (which in itself is indicative of the poor opinion of conversions in general). Dredd was native and is excellent.

Life of Pi is excellent 3d.
Avatar excellent.
Gravity excellent.
Up excellent.


What all these movies have in common is that they were made with 3d in mind from day 1 using proper equipment etc. They also all had good directors who knew how to use the 3d to their advantage and not as a gimmick.

Funny enough Gravity is a post production conversion, probably the best of them though. Good article here discussing the best conversion, Gravity, versus its natively shot 3D counterparts.

Outkast_IRE

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Funny enough Gravity is a post production conversion, probably the best of them though. Good article here discussing the best conversion, Gravity, versus its natively shot 3D counterparts.

Didn't realise it was a conversion.

To be honest it doesn't bother me really, once they do the job properly and they have a director and cinematographer who know what they want from it.

It worked so well in gravity because they didn't rely on it, they just used it for added depth and immersion. Unlike a lot of films where they just want things poking out at you and jumping out to scare you.

TerrorFirmer

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

It worked so well in gravity because they didn't rely on it, they just used it for added depth and immersion. Unlike a lot of films where they just want things poking out at you and jumping out to scare you.

That doesn't really happen anymore in modern 3D movies, was more a staple of anaglyph movies. Good quality 3D movies have a fantastic sense of immersion and depth, nothing to do with stuff flying out of the screen at all. Can't even remember the last time stuff flew out of the screen, apart from Harold and Kumar 3D, which was a brilliant satire on that very method.

Outkast_IRE

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That doesn't really happen anymore in modern 3D movies, was more a staple of anaglyph movies. Good quality 3D movies have a fantastic sense of immersion and depth, nothing to do with stuff flying out of the screen at all. Can't even remember the last time stuff flew out of the screen, apart from Harold and Kumar 3D, which was a brilliant satire on that very method.

Stuff poking out at you actually happens in quite a few 3d movies of the modern era although I would be the first to admit they wouldn't be top notch movies. off the top of my head the ones which loved having stuff poke out at you that I have seen are.

Beowulf
Alice in Wonderland.
Clash of the Titans.

Theres more I just cant think of them off hand, and while the effect obviously works it often just distracts from the movie.

Oafley Jones

You can't get 3D movies on iTunes and what little offering Netflix had (where available) is going away very soon. 3D movies sales are in decline. It's done. Killed by cheap, nasty post conversion cash grabs that turned the audience off. I'm delighted the fad has run it's course. Again.

Honestly Gravity and Avatar are the only real successful uses of the tech I've encountered. Also, the Pixar stuff... However, it was basically used as framing and was so subtle it didn't get in the way, but it didn't add a whole lot either.

Outkast_IRE

Oafley Jones wrote: »

You can't get 3D movies on iTunes and what little offering Netflix had (where available) is going away very soon. 3D movies sales are in decline. It's done. Killed by cheap, nasty post conversion cash grabs that turned the audience off. I'm delighted the fad has run it's course. Again.

Honestly Gravity and Avatar are the only real successful uses of the tech I've encountered. Also, the Pixar stuff... However, it was basically used as framing and was so subtle it didn't get in the way, but it didn't add a whole lot either.

You would need to ask though will the Avatar sequels give the format a boost again.

Gleeso_Finglas

I am watching TT closer to the edge in 3d and its quite good

FloatingVoter

High quality 3D has always existed. It can be found in your local parish hall, the Abbey, the Gate, the Old Vic..even rumours say on Broadway.
There's even good acting in some of these 3DHD performances. But sssh....you might be accused of going to the theatre.