Definitely a bit of a headache. Avatar was the only film I've seen in 3d where I actually thought it should've been in 3d. I've heard the same about Hugo but I didn't catch it.
Batman director Christopher Nolan made some good points about 3D in a recent interview. The crux of his argument against it was, I think, that viewing a film in 3D forces your eyes to focus at a point in space that they wouldn't in real life. The consequence of this is that it is very difficult for you to forget that you are viewing a film. The beauty of cinema for me lies in those moments when you become so immersed in the visceral, emotional or intelectual power of a great movie that you can abandon yourself entirely to the experience. This isn't to say that 3D technology won't one day develop to allow this. Unfortunately this still seems to be a long way off.
Just been along to Aunty Beeb's demo of Super Hi – Vision; which for those who don't know is not the next generation HD (which is 4K) but the generation after that one. Sixteen times the definition of HD. Truly awesome pictures of the Olympic Opening Ceremony.
But the sound is something else. 22.2 channels instead of the usual 5.1! They played the crowd noise from Becky Adlington’s bronze medal race. Was like having the covered end in your living room (for those who’ve fantasised about such things).
It's a fad and another way for the studios to make money, 3d has been around since the 60s. If you don't like it, vote with your feet. Then they'll be forced to stop doing things in 3d
Too much investment as gone into 3D for it to be a fad, it will come as standard on TVs like HD soon enough. If the films are done properly then it's absolutely brilliant stuff, but awful if it's tagged on as an after thought (headaches galore).
If it's filmed specifically in 3D then it can be brilliant. However if it's retouched into 3D from 2D, like Clash Of The Titans, then, to my mind, it's crap. Like others have said the headaches are a negative.
Just been along to Aunty Beeb's demo of Super Hi – Vision; which for those who don't know is not the next generation HD (which is 4K) but the generation after that one. Sixteen times the definition of HD. Truly awesome pictures of the Olympic Opening Ceremony.
But the sound is something else. 22.2 channels instead of the usual 5.1! They played the crowd noise from Becky Adlington’s bronze medal race. Was like having the covered end in your living room (for those who’ve fantasised about such things).
3D instantly reduces the light by 30%. And when I think back to films I've seen in 3D, my brain remembers them in 2D. I've watched 3D movies and taken my glasses off to check that I am actually watching it in 3D. The real reason for it is anti-piracy. But I hate it, I wish it would go away.
IMAX on the other hand, is awesome in the classic sense of the word. M:I4 and Dark Knight Rises looked astonishing on a screen that big. Nolan's got it spot on. 70mm is the future for offering something truly spectacular, and something that you can't enjoy at home.
Alice in Wonderland was fantastic in 3d. Seen quite a few films in 3d, some benefitted from it, some didn't. Never had a problem with a headache. I had not thought of the point Chris Nolan made, and I think it is a very pertinent point. Next time I am at a 3d showing I will see if he is right.
Well, went to see spiderman tonight and you were all right. The 3d did make me forget I was watching a film, it did give me a headache and it did move too fast, taking away from the awesome effects. I wouldn't see a 3D film again and it seems like a gimmick to me.
Desperately wanted to avoid 3D but sadly as I waited too late it was the only way I could see spiderman - 2D has now passed it seems!
We weren't ALL right Danny, because if you read my previous post, I have seen a lot of 3d films and never had a headache. Everyone else seems to be right, but it appears I was wrong. Next time I will try harder to get a headache. Sorry about that...
Only ever seen one film in 3D (don't go to the cinema that often) - The final Harry Potter film. I thought it was pointless being in 3D, and as HarryAMuse says, it made it impossible to be fully immersed in the film. It constantly made me very aware of what I was watching, and so I hated it. However, that was a retro-fitted film, so perhaps one that's been purposefully designed for 3D would be better?
Incidentally, that was also the only 3D film my wife has ever seen, and she thought it was great; she'd be happy to see every film in 3D.
Only ever seen one film in 3D (don't go to the cinema that often) - The final Harry Potter film. I thought it was pointless being in 3D, and as HarryAMuse says, it made it impossible to be fully immersed in the film. It constantly made me very aware of what I was watching, and so I hated it. However, that was a retro-fitted film, so perhaps one that's been purposefully designed for 3D would be better?
Incidentally, that was also the only 3D film my wife has ever seen, and she thought it was great; she'd be happy to see every film in 3D.
Surely spidrman was filmed for 3D? And it wasn't good. Th slow scenes were fine but anything with action seemed blurred and moved too quickly to focus on.
The new Spider-man was so mediocre. Painting by numbers filmmaking of the worst kind. So cynical. There's a reason a small time character director was hired to replace the visionary! Sony want to bash out as many Spideys as they physically can. The 3D didn't help at all. The effects were the only improvement on Raimi's, but the 3D darkened it so much, it was for nothing!
Comments
We took our grandson to see Ice Age 4 in 3D and it was superb
The crux of his argument against it was, I think, that viewing a film in 3D forces your eyes to focus at a point in space that they wouldn't in real life. The consequence of this is that it is very difficult for you to forget that you are viewing a film.
The beauty of cinema for me lies in those moments when you become so immersed in the visceral, emotional or intelectual power of a great movie that you can abandon yourself entirely to the experience.
This isn't to say that 3D technology won't one day develop to allow this. Unfortunately this still seems to be a long way off.
Also, Avatar was a complete pile of poo.
But the sound is something else. 22.2 channels instead of the usual 5.1! They played the crowd noise from Becky Adlington’s bronze medal race. Was like having the covered end in your living room (for those who’ve fantasised about such things).
IMAX on the other hand, is awesome in the classic sense of the word. M:I4 and Dark Knight Rises looked astonishing on a screen that big. Nolan's got it spot on. 70mm is the future for offering something truly spectacular, and something that you can't enjoy at home.
Desperately wanted to avoid 3D but sadly as I waited too late it was the only way I could see spiderman - 2D has now passed it seems!
3D as I am waiting for stuff to happen.
Incidentally, that was also the only 3D film my wife has ever seen, and she thought it was great; she'd be happy to see every film in 3D.