![]() |
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...seriousman.jpg
I enjoyed the second half of the film a lot more than the first. 50 minutes in I was thinking of giving it a 5/10 which is average. The second half redeemed it I was tempted to give it a 6/10. But I'm going to give it a 7/10. I'm feeling generous. :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I wish 3D would FOAD.
|
I hate it when people use abbreviations and I have to look up what they stand for.
3D won't die, and I don't understand why people hate it so much. I think 3D can be a great thing as long as it truly compliments the atmosphere, action and imerssive effect of the film, instead of serving only as a gimmick and an excuse to wow you with cheap things like constantly throwing stuff into the foreground. I still think the 3D in Avatar was f*cking amazing. I saw Alice in 3D which was cool but it doesn't come close nor has any other 3D I've seen. It seems a lot more films now are in 3D because of Avatar but producers fail to realize that a key to Avatar's success isn't just the fact that it was in 3D, but also the fact that it pushed the technology forward, films are not gonna imitate it's success by simply doing 3D the way it's always been done, Avatar raised the bar visually and thus people are gonna want more visuals that are on par with it. Rest assured, one day 3D is gonna evolve into holograms or virtual reality and all that Star Trek stuff and it will literally blow your ass away. |
Quote:
|
I watched Alice in 3D, the glasses ruined the colours of the movie. It seemed dimmer with the glasses on, nothing about the 3D experience was good. I got a headache after it as well. 3D is fucking awful. If it's not broke, don't fix it. No one has ever had issues with film being in 2D. I also think if it doesn't die directors will start making films that are suited to 3D and then the DVD release won't be as good.
|
Quote:
I do agree with a lot of your post though. I'm not actually opposed to the idea of 3D, I just have a problem with the execution. The day they come up with 3D that actually looks better than it did in the 80s, that doesn't give me headaches or make me feel like I'm going cross-eyed, and that actually contributes some kind of aesthetic value to the movie-going experience I'll be onboard. Until then, I'll probably just avoid seeing 3D releases in the theater. |
I still can't see the point of having objects come at you from the screen, other than the mild reaction of a "ah, that was cool, I guess".
What I hated about Avatar, is the fact that it made people ask for more visuals in other films, a thing that's been happening in animations ever since Pixar did Toy Story. So now, people see the visuals in the trailers, instead of the plot or just anything else. If it doesn't add anything to the movie (or anything worth having your head endure the pain that these glasses put you through) than just don't pay worthless millions. Though, something good has come out of it: After the DVD, and the huge decrease in the number of people going to the cinemas, persons are now returning to the theatre. Even if (they think) they can replace the great visual and sound quality of the theatres at home, they still have to go to the cinemas, for 3-D. As for people that actually want to see the movie, and not go to be amazed by any visual that's sticking out of the screen, it's been a living hell. |
Quote:
Like Boo Boo said.. "Rest assured, one day 3D is gonna evolve into holograms or virtual reality and all that Star Trek stuff and it will literally blow your ass away." I think it NEEDS to evolve because at the moment it's God awful. If it improves and is actually good then great. I felt like a complete twat wearing the glasses as well. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:44 AM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.