If it's crap ... We'll tell you
What do you guys think of 3D? I mean, of course you like 3D, you see the world in it everyday, but what about in your movies? I've never seen a movie in 3D, but i'm not sure if I've missed out, or if I've just dodged a bunch of hype. I can express no true, unbiased opinion because i have never seen a movie in 3D so take my words with a grain of salt.
-Whether its the current state of movies in this nation (if there's even a bad one, that is) or if it's just studios making bad movies, it seems that the majority of 3D films have been empty thrill rides. .
(From what I've heard about seeing it in theaters, How to Train Your Dragon featured great 3D and of course a great story. Same for Jackass 3D... well, if you're like Korey and you like those kinds of things flying at your face)
What it all comes down to is this, I think this fad will pass. It won't fade away completely, but the hype will be as obscure as producers of movies ought to be today. I have no real problem against 3D in theory, but if I saw Pachino in 3D shouting "you're out of order! This whole COURT'S outta order!" The movie would simply not be the same.
To me the only movies where people seem to notice/appreciate 3D are movies where there is a lot of 1st person flying shots (Avatar, and HTTYD). I associate this with the fact that everyone has always wished they could fly at some point in there lives, and i guess 3D gives off that illusion.
Personally I don't buy into it anymore. 3D gives me a headache, and I have never been fully satisfied and felt the 3.00$ up-charge was completely justified. People who keep on bringing up the whole 3D is just like the introduction of sound and color to movies, need to shut their face and listen to common sense.
If you want to find something revolutionary in cinema I go with Christopher Nolan with his enthusiasm of IMAX Cameras.
If a talented director wants to use 3D filming in order to further the cinematography of a film, then by all means it should be utilized. Hell, Avatar is a film with a really weak "Fern Gully" storyline full of blue cat people, but the majority that viewed the film in 3D were stunned by the visuals. I have to say that it looks a lot better when it is used to create depth in the field of view, rather than "Incoming Projectile Shot".
3D will never be able to replace a movie's storyline or actors. Regardless, I'm still probably going to see Drive Angry for the three dimensions of Nic Cage's glorious hair.
I completely agree.
3-D is used in two ways and two ways only.
1) When 3-D is used correctly:
It's used as a tool to highlight the movie's main story. It brings an added "depth of view" into the grandness of the scenery or into the "thrill of a moment". Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon (and even The Owls of Gahool) all used the 3-D effect to add an exciting visual bonus to the vast landscapes or to their flying scenes. This visual bonus actually drew your attention as a viewer by giving you more compelling visuals to enjoy. Even a movie like Pixar's UP had some scenery moments that were greatly enhanced by the 3-D effect, specifically when Carl takes off and is looking at the city in the overhead shot. It just added a bit more "punch" to the visuals.
2) When 3-D is used incorrectly:
It's nothing more than a cheap ploy to "force" an audience's reaction. Things are flung at the camera (incoming projectile shot). Worse still is the "after-thought" conversion. Most of these will be horror/action movies that are never thought of as "3-D movies", but simply converted to cash in on it. The scenes aren't carefully constructed to take advantage of the technology, and it tells when it's been converted. Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender, Cats and Dogs 2, My Bloody Valentine 3-D..... you get the idea. Notice that all the "converted" movies from 2-D to 3-D are always horror/action movies, but never comedies or dramas. Why? Because it's just a cheap "marketing gimmick".
What really makes me sad is the number of directors that are still stuck in the 2-D world when it comes to a movie-scene. No matter what anyone's opinion of Avatar may be, you still have to give credit to Cameron for understanding that a 2-D scene and a 3-D scene are completely different and must be written, prepared and shot differently.
What "type" of movies would you like to see in 3D i suppose would be a proper question. War flicks would be great, but I can't have a war-flick with plenty of gore if I don't leave the theater thinking, wow, war fucking blows. That is to say, though great for visual stimulus, it would be offensive to have a gritty, historical war-movie in 3D. I can only think of one movie I would love to see in 3D, if they ever get around to making it. Halo the movie would be pretty bad-ass in three dimensions, and I wouldn't leave the theater angry at the exploitive nature of the film style when applied to a fight against covenant.
3D's becoming a lame and huge gimmick to get people to go to the movies. "Avatar"... all right, that should probably be watched in 3D... but "The Green Hornet" in 3D.... NAH DAWG! Get outta here!
3D's just one big ploy now.