 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoyed GRAVITY in 3-D, the first modern movie I've enjoyed in 3-D. I think it was because there was so little in the backgrounds of the scenes generally, my eyes didn't feel overloaded. It also probably helped that I enjoyed the movie generally (another first).
I'm disinclined, though, to fork over an extra three clams for ANY movie that decides to put out a 3-D version, so I doubt I'll find another movie I'll do this for again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same problem happened back in the mid-50's.
I mean, how many chairs thrown over someone can you dodge?
After a while, the effects become predictable, and look so obvious, even in the 2-D version.
3-D works best when the depth it provides creates a more dramatic environment. Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER is kind of stagey in 2-D (It was based on a stage play, after all.) But, in 3-D, it's a revelation, adding suspense elements of its own to the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 14, 2013 - 2:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
Same problem happened back in the mid-50's.
I mean, how many chairs thrown over someone can you dodge?
After a while, the effects become predictable, and look so obvious, even in the 2-D version.
3-D works best when the depth it provides creates a more dramatic environment. Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER is kind of stagey in 2-D (It was based on a stage play, after all.) But, in 3-D, it's a revelation, adding suspense elements of its own to the story.
While I do agree audience burnout likely not only is a factor now but probably was back in the '50s, I think a much bigger issue is that 3d then was much, much likelier to have serious problems in exhibition back in the day, and the time/money/effort required in getting it right just couldn't be justified for the returns. Consider the need to have two copies of the film running in perfect frame-by-frame synchronization. If either projector had its copy of the movie running just a couple frames ahead of the other, ruinous problems with the image resulted. If the print for one eye was damaged and needed splicing, with the loss of a few frames, the print for the other eye would also have to be spliced, with the corresponding frames (and no more or less) removed, as well. There were all kinds of problems then that simply aren't issues now with digital projection (there can of course be entirely different problems with that, of course, but nothing so difficult to overcome as the issues of early '50s 3d). And even putting aside those issues that ideally wouldn't come up, 3d projection still required two separate prints of a movie, which of course was expensive.
Nowadays, 3d enjoys so many advantages that it didn't back in the day. That's still no guarantee that viewers won't get tired of it and ditch it, of course, but I do think there's much, much more reason to think it'll endure now than there was then. Just the fact alone that honest-to-goodness 3d TVs are here and readily available to average folks is such a huge change from the 1950s, or even just a decade ago, and there are now numerous 3d movies available for viewing in the home, let alone every week at the multiplex. It's completely different from 1953.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I hate traveling miles and miles to pay extra bux even for an "event" film, I think GRAVITY might have been worth it in 3-D plus IMAX.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the STAR TREK - THE RE-CASTING OF KHAN movie on dvd, and didn't think I missed out on anything that it was in 2-D.
I guess I can put the extra 3 dollars in my retirement fund, soze when I leave the workforce, I'll have that much more velvet. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like 3-D. What I don't like is the fact that the glasses darken the film image, which seems much brighter when I don't wear the glasses.
AVATAR was good in 3-D, but as a film I thought AVATAR sucked. I liked JOHN CARTER much better as a film, and enjoyed in 3-D in a theater as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
