Who's going to see Avatar?

**Janszoon** · 01-27-2010, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

for one the movies were filmed with that specific purpose in mind and the overall presentation is much more believable.

Generally speaking, 3D movies have always been filmed with that specific purpose in mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

the ones you are talking about...like watching "the blob" in 3d with the red and blue glasses...i did that and i must say the difference is like night and day.

Except the "new" non- red and blue glasses variety of 3D movies aren't new at all. They've been making these movies for 25 years or so and to my eyes the technology doesn't seem to have evolved much at all. The 3D in Avatar or Up or any of the other recent 3D movies doesn't strike me as any better than something like Captain EO at all.

boo boo · 01-27-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Can someone please explain to me what's so fascinating about a technology which is not only incredibly gimmicky but also 50+ years old?

Well for one, Avatar's 3D is just a little bit better than old 1950s b movies.

And it was treated like a legitimate part of the film and not just a guy in a top hat bouncing a paddleball at you.

**Janszoon** · 01-27-2010, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayleigh.

3D is pretty new over here, my local cinema has JUST got it's 3D screen/technology whatever.
I've never seen a film in 3D except Avatar, that is why I am pretty fascinated by it. As it's all new to me. I've heard some Chinese whispers that 3D is massive across the pond, this is probably why you're not phased by it, if the whispers are true that is.

Are you sure? 3D is such an old technology it's pretty hard for me to imagine they have never shown 3D movies in Scotland until just now.

I wouldn't describe it as massive here. It's just that every couple of decades the studios try to push 3D as the big thing. They did it in the 50s, they did it in the 80s and now they're trying it again. So there have been a bunch of 3D movies in the past few years.

Guybrush · 01-27-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kayleigh.

3D is pretty new over here, my local cinema has JUST got it's 3D screen/technology whatever.
I've never seen a film in 3D except Avatar, that is why I am pretty fascinated by it. As it's all new to me. I've heard some Chinese whispers that 3D is massive across the pond, this is probably why you're not phased by it, if the whispers are true that is.

As far as I know, it doesn't require any special technology from the cinemas .. Well, except the customers need those 3D glasses of course

As Janszoon mentions, the technology is the same as in anaglyph images, perhaps just slightly refined.

It's not the first time it's been thought of as cool. I remember I got a Donald Duck magazine when I was a kid where the cartoon images were all anaglyphs. Red/Green glasses included!

edit :

For the record, 3D in movies is just distracting I think. I prefer the regular versions!

duga · 01-27-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Generally speaking, 3D movies have always been filmed with that specific purpose in mind.

Except the "new" non- red and blue glasses variety of 3D movies aren't new at all. They've been making these movies for 25 years or so and to my eyes the technology doesn't seem to have evolved much at all. The 3D in Avatar or Up or any of the other recent 3D movies doesn't strike me as any better than something like Captain EO at all.

no, in the past, generally speaking, 3d movies were made into 3d after the fact because they thought it would be cool. the big difference now is directors are making their movies with every intention of making it 3d and film the movie accordingly. maybe there were some movies made specifically for 3d, but they weren't big hollywood blockbusters they were "hey let's watch a movie in 3d even though otherwise it would blow".

FETCHER. · 01-27-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Are you sure? 3D is such an old technology it's pretty hard for me to imagine they have never shown 3D movies in Scotland until just now.

I wouldn't describe it as massive here. It's just that every couple of decades the studios try to push 3D as the big thing. They did it in the 50s, they did it in the 80s and now they're trying it again. So there have been a bunch of 3D movies in the past few years.

I'm not saying that there has been completely no 3D movies in our cinema. In my lifetime, there has been none though, or none that I've seen or heard of. The only cinemas that had 3D screens until recently would be the massive 12 story beasts in Glasgow. Now pretty much ever cinema has a 3D screen to accomodate the shitload of 3D films that are being/have been produced

.

**Janszoon** · 01-27-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Well for one, Avatar's 3D is just a little bit better than old 1950s b movies.

Yes, it's better than 50s movies, but not particularly better than the 3D movies from the 80s that I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

And it was treated like a legitimate part of the film and not just a guy in a top hat bouncing a paddleball at you.

I thought it was more like a throwaway part of the film. Avatar would have been basically exactly the same in 2D except minus the eye strain.

**Janszoon** · 01-27-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

no, in the past, generally speaking, 3d movies were made into 3d after the fact because they thought it would be cool. the big difference now is directors are making their movies with every intention of making it 3d and film the movie accordingly. maybe there were some movies made specifically for 3d, but they weren't big hollywood blockbusters they were "hey let's watch a movie in 3d even though otherwise it would blow".

I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it really isn't accurate. The joke about 3D movies has always been that they make excuses to have shots of things being thrown at the audience and whatnot, hence booboo's comment about "a guy in a top hat bouncing a paddleball at you". If a movie is making excuses to have these shots, obviously the people who made it were well aware as they were making it that the movie was going to be 3D.

boo boo · 01-27-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Yes, it's better than 50s movies, but not particularly better than the 3D movies from the 80s that I mentioned earlier.

I thought it was more like a throwaway part of the film. Avatar would have been basically exactly the same in 2D except minus the eye strain.

I had no eye strain at all and no, no it wouldn't. The entire film had something 3D going on, and it pretty much put me right in there.

**Janszoon** · 01-27-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I had no eye strain at all and no, no it wouldn't. The entire film had something 3D going on, and it pretty much put me right in there.

Well, I'm with Tore here, I just found it distracting. I think I would've felt more involved in the movie if I didn't have to deal with eye strain and wearing an uncomfortable pair of glasses.