3D at the movies

[dellzeqq]

The Beeb's fave (and smallest) film critic, the man who would nix chix pix, thinks that 3D is futile and doomed.
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08FK7WghHSc
Me, I'm not so sure.......

I've recently seen a couple of films in 3D, none of which were very good, but the depth did give something that would otherwise be lacking.

Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams is an excruciatingly boring film but the 3D did convey the cave paintings that were the subject of the film in a way that 2D couldn't manage.

The final Harry Potter (I was kidnapped, honest) has some nice bits, with spooky things appearing to fly from 'behind' the audience in to the screen

What do you think?

 

[Cletus Van Damme]

From what I have seen so far it is really not my thing at all. Mainly because the films that are made in it are not the type of films I would watch anyway and I dislike wearing the glasses. When my daughter is older and I have to go and see films that are made in 3D if it is still around I may like it some more. I have only seen one recent 3D film and also looked at a friends 50" Sony 3D tv, neither really impressed me. It's just something else to get cash out of people. They sold HDTV's years ago with very little broadcast HD available, now they want us to get rid of our crappy non 3D HDTV's and buy a new 3D tv with very little content available. I think a lot of films have been crap for ages now just relying on great special effects/cgi with little else going for them. Now I guess this is just something else to wow the audience with flashier effects in mediocre films.

 

[Seigi]

I've also never been too fond of 3D. I find it's more of a gimmick than anything else, and like Cheesney Hawks pointed out it's mostly on movies that seem to want to 'impress' with their CGI, whereas I much prefer seeing a good psychological thriller/thriller/drama in general where this sort of thing would be pointless, I'd prefer they put more effort into the story development and characters than trying to wow me with their CGI effects which were good in the the likes of Star Wars in the 70's but not now when every movie has them.

Avatar in my eyes was really overrated (I find it hard to keep my attention whole way through), and seemed more of just a showcase for 3D than anything else. Other movies that seem to fall into this "CGI-genre" are the transformers' which I find incredibly hard to watch without cringing.

 

[Davidc]

Saw Gulliver (I was dragged there kicking and screaming - honestly). Quite impressed by the technology. Thought the writing and acting was mediocre.

As has been the case since the silent movie days the important thing is the writing and acting. Effects and technology have their place but it's secondary to those and IMO always will be.

I'm sure 3D has its place, as do cinemascope and technicolour, surround sound and fooling around with the air conditioning temperatures. None of those are what define a good film, they can only enhance and sometimes add to the product.

I'm not the best to comment though, I prefer real actors on a real stage, real musicians in the same room or field, and real athletes and sports people in front of me (Real 3D and High Definition) to any film or TV, CD or radio facsimile of them.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I saw Friday the 13th part III in 3D when it came out, early 80s-ish I guess. It was rubbish with a couple of 3D effects thrown in.

 

[Arch]

I'm unlikely to bother with 3D, although I've never seen a 3D feature film, only those ones at places like Alton Towers, where they rely on people poking things out of the screen at you for effect.

I have heard people say they've felt motion sick, and I'm not risking the price of a cinema ticket to feel queasy for a couple of hours. I'm planning to see Harry Potter in the next week or so, and will be opting for 2D.

I'm in the 'just make a better film' camp.

 

[Night Train]

The talkies and technicolour will never take off. Just a gimick really.
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoKbDNY0Zwg[/media]

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 1482989"]
I think that after five minutes I've forgotten that it's 3D and so it is no different from any other film. And the glasses then get on my nerves but I can't take them off.
[/quote]

Yes on both counts. I've only seen Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in the recent phase of 3-D, it wasn't much better than Jaws 3-D back nineteen eighty-whatever.

The best thing about 3D movies is looking at the audience and pretending it's a Roy Orbisson convention!

 

[dellzeqq]

The best thing about 3D movies is looking at the audience and pretending it's a Roy Orbisson convention!

or a Situationist's Night Out.........

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Better than 3D films, I've got The Cramps 'Off the Bone' LP which has a 3D cover and came with 3D glasses.

Psychobillytastic!

 

[wiggydiggy]

MKs piece (I read on the guardian site) is pretty much bang on the money, and he's right with the videogame industry being the one to most benefit from 3d.

An IMAX film is far more impressive to me than a washed out 3d film for blockbusters, and 'standard' cinema is more than suitable for everything else.

3d is a waste of money at the cinema.

 

[marinyork]

Seen Alice in Wonderland in 3D. It was generally agreed to be a bit hit and miss and variable, I quite liked it in 3D, but the effects were all over the place. The only other film I've seen in 3D at the cinema is the last Shrek film. This in contrast to Alice in Wonderland was very balanced and you could see the 3D pretty much throughout the film.

Generally for things like Harry Potter that were done in post production people, people think it is rubbish.

Got a few mates looking at 3Dtvs and I think they are mad. Gaming monitor is fair enough, absolutely fair enough.

 

[Noodley]

Love 3D, it is superb.

 

[Ravenbait]

I have one eye.

'Nuff said.

Sam

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I guess we'll have to wait and see once we get beyond the 'gosh, wow' stage and see what a wider range intelligent filmmakers will make of it. I think the current technology will not last - it's really rather crude and the reliance on glasses is indicative of a kludge. The other problem is that it seems to have just accentuated Hollywood's over-reliance on special FX and in that department, Mark Kermode is spot on.