Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 5:48 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

With any movie coming out, I have to check to see if it was shot in 3D before I spend my money on it. Sadly, finding a lot of material about how good the 3D is can sometimes be challenging but at least Iron Man 3 has been out for a while in some areas so we can get some good input.

One review says that the 3D wasn't particularly good and didn't really add to the experience very much but it also doesn't really take away from the experience or result in poor visuals as a result.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/homecinema/iron-man-3-is-fresh-ferrous-fun-but-should-you-see-it-in-3d-50011002/

Do you think you will watch it in 3D? Or stick with 2D?

 
 Posted:   Apr 28, 2013 - 6:21 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

It's fake 3D so I will be going with 2D.

When deciding whether to see a movie in 3D, I refer to this site: http://realorfake3d.com/

My general thoughts are: if it's a film that I care enough to see in theaters, and they cared enough to shoot it in 3D, I'll pay for the 3D. I won't subject my eyes to post-converted 3D; I have yet to see it done well enough to warrant the extra cash.

 
 Posted:   Apr 29, 2013 - 10:08 AM   
 By:   Buscemi   (Member)

I do not get why Marvel is so against shooting in 3-D. They have no problem making the films two-hour ads for The Avengers so why not spend another $5-10 million to do shoot in 3-D?

As for the conversion, I saw the trailer with Jurassic Park 3-D and the frame rate skips every other frame in 3-D. On the other hand, Man of Steel's conversion looks fantastic based on the trailers and could pass for the real thing.

 
 Posted:   Apr 29, 2013 - 10:43 AM   
 By:   Stefancos   (Member)

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.

 
 Posted:   Apr 29, 2013 - 12:38 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

I'm a huge fan of the 3D format so I elected to see IM3 in 3D but actually wish I hadn't.

Honestly, the only time the 3D is really any good at all is when the debris is flying around after the bombing at Mann's Chinese Theatre. So about 6 seconds at most, the rest of it doesn't look 3D at all. And the best opportunity to showcase the 3D effect - when Killian projects a holographic image of his brain for Pepper - is just totally blown. The similar scene in Promethius (of the universe map) worked so amazingly in 3D.

IM3 is a good fun movie - I'll need to see it again to see how I rate it against the other 2 - and when I do I will absolutely see it in 2D. Much as I love stereo movies, there is absolutely NO reason to see it in that format.

 
 Posted:   Apr 29, 2013 - 7:19 PM   
 By:   Mr Greg   (Member)

Just to echo others - I saw it in 3D but unimpressed (am a fan of 3D, by the way)....only the sequence with Air Force One stood out for me in 3D...the rest I found forgettable.

 
 Posted:   Apr 29, 2013 - 7:38 PM   
 By:   Storyteller   (Member)

Nope. 2D for me all the way, now and forever.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 9:31 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

Based on what my experiences with the postconverted 3D of the three previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, along with Mike J.'s comments here, I don't know that I'll bother with seeing it in 3D, though I'm very much looking forward to the movie.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 10:00 AM   
 By:   Simon Underwood   (Member)

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 - 10:08 AM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

I'm just hoping my theaters will have showtimes for 2D that are when I want to go! Of course they post the 3D and IMAX 3D times way ahead of time but I can't find out when the 2D showings are until later in the week.

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 11:17 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

Nope. 2D for me all the way, now and forever.

Is that because you only have one eye?

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 11:37 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

I have both eyes and good depth perception and prefer 2D. I find that 3D rarely approximates real 3D environments, and thus doesn't look more "real", and also rarely adds anything to the art of the medium or the story. Some directors with a visual eye I will trust -- for all I loathed Prometheus, it looked great in 3D, and for the most part so did Hugo -- but in most cases I don't find it adds enough to the experience to be worth it and in quite a few I find that the filmmakers are insufficiently thoughtful that the experience is unpleasant or, at best, pointless. (And conversely, since most of us don't have 3D home viewing technology yet, filming for 3D eliminates compositional options that might result in a less dynamic 2D experience: note the difference between compositions in Lord of the Rings vs The Hobbit!)

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 11:53 AM   
 By:   Storyteller   (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.

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 11:58 AM   
 By:   Khan   (Member)

Seeing this in 2D.

Kinda wish I could see Star Trek in IMAX 2D, but I'll live with the 3D to see whatever Abrams shot with IMAX cameras in all its IMAXy glory.

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 12:24 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

Seeing this in 2D.

Kinda wish I could see Star Trek in IMAX 2D, but I'll live with the 3D to see whatever Abrams shot with IMAX cameras in all its IMAXy glory.


THIS. Shame that all the IMAX theaters are IMAX 3D with double the extra cost.

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 12:54 PM   
 By:   Khan   (Member)

Seeing this in 2D.

Kinda wish I could see Star Trek in IMAX 2D, but I'll live with the 3D to see whatever Abrams shot with IMAX cameras in all its IMAXy glory.


THIS. Shame that all the IMAX theaters are IMAX 3D with double the extra cost.


There's actually an IMAX theatre near me that is 2D only, but I doubt a 2D IMAX version of Star Trek will be released.

And I take that back - apparently the IMAX at the Dulles Smithsonian IS showing a 2D IMAX version.

SO IN.

 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 1:41 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (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.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 30, 2013 - 1:44 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 - 1:49 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?! big grin

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 - 3:12 PM   
 By:   Storyteller   (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.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.