Morte on 7/7/2010 at 08:29
Quote Posted by Stitch
There are more effective arguments to be made against the current 3D craze than pointing out instances of seamless implementation.
My point is that its pointless if it's seamlessly integrated; you don't notice it.
Which would be fine if it didn't come with the drawbacks of a heftier ticket price and those stupid fucking glasses which cause a significant amount of color loss, and at least for me eyestrain after a while, eventually leading to headache if it's some endless James Cameron indulgence. But it does, and adds up to paying more for an inferior experience.
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
As an aside, how was
Up in 3D? I forgot it was one of the forerunners.
It went more for adding depth to scenes instead of showy pointing at the audience that most 3D movies are so fond of, and it didn't punish you for looking at the wrong part of the screen by using constant focus pulls like Avatar did.
Mostly it was content to let you sit back and enjoy the story, instead of bludgeoning you over the head with how goddamn 3D it is.
Shakey-Lo on 7/7/2010 at 10:23
The trailers were all for shitty banal special fx films because you went to see a shitty banal special fx film.
Don't go to shitty movies and then complain that movies are shitty.
I don't really know why you were looking forward to this movie so much, Shamalamadingdong is an utter hack who only gets work because his first movie had a famous twist.
Koki on 7/7/2010 at 12:26
Quote Posted by fett
Seriously, why hasn't this dumbfuck been thrown out on his ass by now?
You tell me, you're a moderator here!
New Horizon on 7/7/2010 at 14:09
Dude, there has been nothing but bad press for this movie.
(
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_airbender/)
I'm thankful that we have an independent cinema here in our town. I enjoy the occasional Toy Story 3 or Inception, but for the most part I'll usually head on down to City Cinema and check out some of the non-mainstream movies.
Ahhh, city cinema.
(
http://citycinema.net/)
Stitch on 7/7/2010 at 14:42
Quote Posted by Morte
My point is that its pointless if it's seamlessly integrated; you don't notice it.
Yeah, I got that, and I disagree. I'd argue that outside of spectacle entertainment, the ideal use of 3D
should be incredibly subtle. 3D at its best should enrich the viewing experience in a way that you don't even consciously notice, in much the same way that we navigate the world via 3D sight without even really thinking about it. Ideally, all movies would have this perfect 3D, with the screen a window into the director's world.
But, alas, when it comes down to it you and I actually agree after all, as you nailed why 3D (as is) sucks:
Quote Posted by Morte
Which would be fine if it didn't come with the drawbacks of a heftier ticket price and those stupid fucking glasses which cause a significant amount of color loss, and at least for me eyestrain after a while, eventually leading to headache if it's some endless James Cameron indulgence. But it does, and adds up to paying more for an inferior experience.
Yep, agreed on all counts. 3D has come a long way, but it's still kind of a pain in the ass.
But still, I think it's important to separate current implementation from potential. If we are at some point able to overcome the issues you listed, I think that 3D will become the new standard that we'll wonder how we ever did without (and arguments about certain films "not needing 3D" will seem archaic). 3D will cease to be a gimmick and filmmakers will learn how to use it effectively.
Somewhat akin to the stereo sound's introduction to music back in the 60's. Anyone listening to the clumsy stereo mix of
Revolver could easily have argued that stereo is a gimmick and mono is all you really need, and yet stereo sound turned into an invaluable tool for giving sound space and clarity.
Of course, stereo sound never required ridiculous glasses.
Matthew on 7/7/2010 at 15:03
Can those glasses be used over normal prescription glasses?
dj_ivocha on 7/7/2010 at 15:54
Not specifically related to this movie, but still...
I wonder if there is any truth to (
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/) this:
Quote:
Conclusion
Children under seven are at risk of strabismus – period.
Going to a 3D movie each month probably won’t hurt anyone’s vision, especially adults; however, if we introduce the 3D effect into the home, we dramatically increase our exposure. We could sit at home with our new 3D HDTV and watch non-stop 3D for days.
Harvester on 7/7/2010 at 23:01
Quote Posted by Matthew
Can those glasses be used over normal prescription glasses?
Yes, I did that with Avatar and it worked fine. It's thus far the only 3D movie I've ever seen and I really enjoyed it.
Matthew on 8/7/2010 at 09:42
Ah, thanks.
Eldron on 9/7/2010 at 16:09
I think the aspect of M. Night still doing movies is more frightening than using 3d for them.
