Customer Discussions > Movie forum

3D movies are a joke

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 58 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 4, 2010 5:01:49 PM PDT
Not a fan of this technology. Witness the current generation of trashy "shock" movies exploiting the 3D gimmick at the expense of plot, character development, acting... It also allows the industry to squeeze more money out of old, tired franchises, such as the upcoming re-release of Star Wars in 3D.

Got me to thinking. What old classic movies would be most inappropriate and benefit the LEAST from 3D? Casablanca 3D?
Gone With the Wind 3D? Or my personal favorite, My Dinner With Andre 3D?

What do you think? Just for fun.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 4, 2010 5:16:42 PM PDT
Conor says:
I agree with you essentially. While I have no problem at all with 3D for dumb horrors that don't take themselves seriously, I have a problem when it's prioritized over any aesthetic principal.
Horror is a rich genre, and it's in trouble if future offerings are going to be made with a gimmick in mind, rather than any decent content.

Anyways, my choice would be Citizen kane. Colourized as well, with a nu-metal score. It'll REALLY annoy people.

Posted on Oct 4, 2010 5:18:15 PM PDT
I was into 3D when it started but now I don't care about it. I like movies like Coraline, A Christmas Carol, Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D but also I realized that great films like Up or Toy Story 3 don't need the 3d in order to be good. Also the great amount of trashy films (Clash of the Titans, Cats & Dogs 2 and others) that were converted to 3D make me see that if the movie is bad, a pair of glasses won't save it. I don't plan to see HP7 in 3D because I always have seen them in regular format and love them just like that, to see them in 3D for me is pointless. Other thing that might get you think is that two of the three best films of the year are not in 3D (Inception and The Social Network, TS3 is the other and is a film that doesn't need 3D to enhance anything which is why I did not see it in 3D and still was a wonderful experience). I think 3D had better luck last year when Avatar was nominated for best Picture and has huge earnings.

This year studios embraced 3D more widely and while Alice in Wonderland and TS3 had huge earnings, there have been a decline of quality and a decline of attendance in 3D pictures. An example is the poor converting of Clash of the Titans, another is the poor earnings that Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole collected through this weeks.

My main point is that the picture is just good in regular format (such as TS3) why pay more to see it in 3D?

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 10:23:18 AM PDT
C McGhee says:
We spent all last year lamenting the quality of today's movies & Hollywood decides to perfect a gimmick. Then again, that's good thinking for some of them. Hope Springs eternal. Too bad it's the Fall.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 10:36:31 AM PDT
ZombiBoi says:
I'm yet another who thinks 3D is pointless. They've had the technology for decades ( Jaws 3D for example ). Why they've decided we must now see everything ( or almost everything it seems ) in 3D I don't understand...I guess it's like all if the recent remakes..they've run out of ideas and have to try and make the few they do have more "exciting". I'm in the under 30 crowd that is supposed to get a kick out these films. The only thing they do for me is give me a headache.

My choice for films that would be pointless yet funny in 3D? Cape Fear or better yet Scarface...they could make a tagline " In Summer 2011 get some powder...Scarface in 3D".

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 10:55:54 AM PDT
M. Stifler says:
Avatar and PIXAR movies have been the only 3D releases worth anything.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 11:09:06 AM PDT
Art Franklin says:
Be very careful. Only movies that were actually SHOT in 3D should be seen in 3D. The recent Resident Evil flick was ridiculous plot-wise but the 3D was gorgeous and enjoyable. (See the opening scene.)

Coming soon:

Nature Trail to Hell in 3D!
"Birth of a Nation" - now in 3D!
Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" - in 3D! (For added midnight mayhem release a flock of birds into the audience to poop in their popcorn and fly in people's hair.)

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 2:37:20 PM PDT
Maybe this is the wrong forum for this sort of comment, but--

I don't think 3D is a gimmick in the strictest sense of the word. To say that "the movie would have been just as good in 2D" does not imply that it was a bad choice to make the movie stereo. It is true that people who don't know what they are doing can use 3D as a gimmick to help sell more movies, but let's examine exactly what 3D does for a moment.

Films are at heart a means of creating a visually immersive experience. All 3D does is make the film more immersive for a majority of audience members. No more, and no less. I see the use of 3D to be much like the addition of color way back when. It's not that a film has to be in color to be good--there are enormous numbers of very solid bits of black and white storytelling. 3D is just one more thing that makes it more like real life, one more way to help create dramatic visuals. It's one more element of filmmaking, much like surround sound (which could also be argued to be a gimmick). To say that it is "pointless" is to say that films are currently "good enough" or perhaps "realistic enough"--they don't ever need to become more immersive than they are right now. This is an assertion I would tend to disagree with very strongly.

Now, to be fair, 3D is not like computer graphics--it does not allow us to tell stories that we could not tell before in the same way because it was physically impossible. But that doesn't make it pointless. Perhaps it is unnecessary, but there are a lot of technically unnecessary things that are not pointless. Entertainment as a whole is a good example of this.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 7, 2010 3:08:36 PM PDT
C McGhee says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 4:12:04 PM PDT
Not sure I understand the last comment, but I share many of the thoughts in the posts above. Some of the Pixar movies are great fun and terrific eye candy. Nothing wrong with that. I do take exception to some of the weaker slasher/horror movies that use 3D as their drawing point (i.e. no other redeeming features). I am also turned off when tired franchises like Star Wars goes to the well again, but to each their own.
And on a lighter subject, my favorite upcoming 3D television channel: CSPAN 3D.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 4:31:44 PM PDT
3D is a gimmick and, to me, is only successful when used as one. When the edges of the screen slightly blur outwards in an attempt to bring you into the atmosphere of the film, I'm not impressed. When it's used purely as a way to throw things at the audience, that's when I find it entertaining.

I hate the "Resident Evil" series, but I saw "Afterlife" in 3D cause I was able to for free. I found "Despicable Me" (a great film in 2D) to be very impressive in it's 3D incarnation...So, I was intrigued about the first live action film since Avatar to use James Cameron's 3D cameras. "Resident Evil: Afterlife" used 3D as a gimmick to great effect, I thought. I still have a bit of a kid in me and things flying out of the screen looks pretty cool...Films like Toy Story 3 and Avatar which simply push the edges of the screen out further do nothing for me; I don't feel more drawn into the atmosphere of the film.

Overall, I'm not a fan of 3D and it looks like it's popularity is fading somewhat...But I do want to see "Drive Angry" with Nicolas Cage in 3D more than I want to see almost anything else.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 4:37:05 PM PDT
I think Pixar films are marvelous and don't need 3D to prove that. I agree that Avatar looked great on 3D but I still could find some weaknesses in the film despite being in 3D. I'm buying the collector's edition that is coming on November 16 because of 3 reasons:1: I don't have a 3D HDTV and I don't plan to buy one in the near future, my current HDTV is excellent and standard blu-ray looks astounding. 2: Avatar is great to watch because has breathtaking special effects and in Bluray they will look gorgeus despite not being in 3D and third, Do I really want to wear glasses in my own house where I want to be as comfortable as possible to watch a film? I don't think so.

Posted on Oct 7, 2010 6:40:20 PM PDT
PlanetHell says:
Only movies filmed in 3-D should be seen in 3-D. James Cameron's boasted "fusion camera system," worked wonders for Avatar and worked extra wonders for "Resident Evil: Afterlife."
Using it in horror movies is beyond failure; it is always poor looking (RE: A is horror/action/sci-fi). And the cheap conversion process always looks awful too. It is a bad gimmick, but if they film it right, it adds an entirely new experience. It doesn't matter that they've had 3-D, the new advancements are 1000x superior. This is the difference between night and day were talking about.

Posted on Oct 8, 2010 6:36:01 AM PDT
R0cK-N-RoLLA says:
I can't wait...I'm finally going to see Resident Evil Afterlife in 3D later today. I also can remember seeing a special midnight showing of "House of Wax" on the big screen many years ago starring Vincent Price. It was filmed in the old traditional 3D and my friend and I were blown away by how good it looked.

Posted on Oct 8, 2010 11:21:53 AM PDT
J. Green says:
3D movies are a fad, well with the glasses anyways.... However, 3D video games are something I'm gonna look forward to! Can you imagine Call of Duty, having an RPG shoot out of the screen at you? Brilliant!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 12:16:25 PM PDT
I read thru all of the post trying to find one to reply to. Now I have not played any of the 3D video games neither have I watched any of the new 3D films and do NOT plan to. I saw a lot of the ones from the 50s on tv where you would need the glasses and heard about it - no thank you!
Plus I have a stignatism along with heavy prescription glasses so adding another pair isn't going to make me enjoy going to the theater by giving one hell of a migraine. I can wait till it comes out on disc or cable. Yes I know my lost but I can live with it, beside who really wants to constantly see someone throwing arm or something else right up to the camera lens all through out the film??

Posted on Oct 8, 2010 12:35:58 PM PDT
Amagai says:
The 50's? Hahaha, this is not the same 3D you are used to seeing... the 50's lol

I use Nvidia glasses(which fit over prescription glasses) and a PC connected to Mitsubishi 73" DLP 3D it.
As stated above, movies need to be FILMED in 3D, and not post processed

Avatar is garbage, but the effects were well done. And I will NOT be buying the so called collectors edition.

You know what is going to happen, there will be this so called Collectors Edition, then a month or so later a bare bones 3D edition will make its way to the markets, then after that a 3D collectors edition with all the extras from the first collectors edition added on to the 3D... god I hate Hollywood and all the people of the world who have made money necessary.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2010 12:45:42 PM PDT
Mr. F. says:
I would love to watch the whole Chaplin collection re-framed at 2.35:1 , colorized and in 3D.
(the new soundtrack remixed at 7.1 surround and the dubbing of Chaplin's voice could be a plus)
I might even go to the theater.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2010 2:43:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2010 2:45:46 AM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
i agree but i will also add the same general idea to HD-Video, since 3-D is video as well not film. It is just the era of videogame graphics and phony cgi, bad scripts and terrible acting.

Now i do enjoy games when i can control them, but don't expect me to pay 18 dollars to see one in 3-D without the interactive features.

Thanks to George Lucas and James Cameron, film is being wiped out as a medium even when no respected director or Director of photography will shoot in these formats. Apparently even Peter Jackson has been seduced to the darkside of HD-Video cam and 3-D.

Posted on Oct 9, 2010 3:11:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2010 4:10:35 AM PDT
JC says:
Obviously ALL the people who put down the NEW 3D technolgy of today, have not experienced this NEW 3D TECHNOLOGY which is (SHUTTER/STEREOSCOPIC), Listen Up If you are refferring to "THE OLD 3D" where you have to wear two different colors (ANYLGLYPHIC) over your eyes, Yeah that SUCKS and is worthless!! Also this is NOT 'POLARIZED' 3D like you see in most the theatres today that uses polarized 3D glasses.. This newest 3D that Blue-ray is using is todays newest technology of 3D (SHUTTER/STEREOSCOPIC) and is a whole nother experience to behold!!! It is NOTHING like the "old 3D" (ANYLGLYPHIC). It is close to polarized but still not the same. This new 3D technology (SHUTTER/STEREOSCOPIC) will absolutly blow you away, PERIOD!!! I have seen ALOT of naysayers in many different forums putting down 3D and I would bet that 95% of those putting this new 3D down are people that just cannot be satisfied in any way, or simply have NOT seen this brand new 3D technology that is being implemented into "BLUE-RAY 3D", You HAVE to wear "3D SHUTTER" glasses to see in stereoscopic vision. But remember and keep in mind that this is NOT two different colors (anylglyphic) over your eyes!! It's a whole new game now. So till you put down todays newest technology of 3D where you have to wear SHUTTER glasses, GO SEE IT FIRST!! Also keep in mind that aproximately 10% of people 'cannot' see or will never be able to see 3D with this new shutter/steroscopic technology, and cant see what we are all being blown away with. I feel bad for em cause they are missing a HUGE deal here.
So as for me yeah, Like Micky D's say's, 'I'M LUVIN IT'. So far I have invested in 'six' pair of shutter glasses and bought a 65" 3D television, and have accumulated a nice assortment of 3D PS3 games and Blue-Ray 3D movies, Almost every one avail. so far... But when buying movies in 3D keep in mind that the 'best' to be had in this new 3D technology is the movies that were originally shot in stereoscopic 3D or (S3D). The 'remade' movies aren't as good. That's my 3 and a half cents.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2010 3:39:16 AM PDT
C McGhee says:
M Gaudet-

I agree with alot of what you say but don't see anyway to slow it down. If the previews change scenes enough times per second it seems people get excited regardless of content. I figure it has to burn itself out but I may be burnt out by the time it happens.
Gee look at me whine!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2010 3:49:34 AM PDT
C McGhee says:
J Coleman-

you're a techie but tech ain't movie making. Wouldn't it just be simpler if you didn't need actors & actresses at all? You know, get enough faces & expressions in the database & save all that money of transporting people & paying them enough to get their talent not to mention keep that percentage of the profit they want. I'm not saying todays 3-D isn't better. I'm saying all that money comes out of the budget for story & talent. Get all the new 3-D you want on your games. Leave the 3-D out of movies. They require talented writers, actors & actresses. Heck I'm talking like you could do something, which is dumber than your post.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2010 3:54:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2010 4:12:06 AM PDT
JC says:
C McGHEE - (The watcher)

We can sure tell your definately of high intelligence aren't you! That's an awful big spoon for such a little boy to be carrying around isn't it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2010 4:47:57 AM PDT
C McGhee says:
j Coleman-

& I manage it as best I can. Did you pet the kitty or skip that as you did an answer? I'll just wait till you post in 3-D. Other subjects seem beyond you.

Posted on Oct 9, 2010 6:51:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2010 6:52:02 AM PDT
I don't think anyone is suggesting the gimmickry trump content and acting talent here. It's wonderful when all work in harmony to create the final product as in Avatar (where it's used for immersion into the film rather than things flying off the screen ala Disney World, though some of that has it's merits also). When the experience puts you into the environment as in live theater or theater in the round it's needs to be judged on it's own merit. I've never heard anyone say a good Broadway play would be better in 2D!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  58
Initial post:  Oct 4, 2010
Latest post:  May 10, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions