Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: crisis on August 06, 2010, 07:21:48 PM
-
So I'm watching television and I see a commercial preview for Step Up 3D, sequel to the last 2 Step Up movies that feature ridiculous choreographed dance moves with, but now in 3D. I honestly didn't know what to think.
What's your stance on this big 3D craze that's infested the entertainment industry? Do you see it becoming the standard or is it just a fad?
I must admit, I'm one of the only 5 people that has yet to watch Avatar in any format, so my feelings may change once that happens. Right now I hate how literally everything is pushing 3D down our throats, and it scares me how Sony, Panasonic, & countless others are developing 3D televisions as if it's already confirmed the public wants everything broadcasted in 3D now. At this rate, in 3-5 years we'll all own 3D TVs because all of gaming will only cater to 3D-only sets. And that sucks because I only had my 42" for 2 years.
The only aspect of this 3D phenomenon our culture is engulfed in, that interests me is, obviously, the 3DS. Not because it's glasses-free, but because I love Nintendo's handhelds & the creativity that's involved. Had they announced this handheld being completely different sans 3D, I'd still be interested.
So will you embrace 2011-3D, or are you against it, or are you on the fence still?
-
I personally hate it and think its just a fad just like in the old days with the anaglyphic glasses and it wont ever be more than that til the term "3d" = full holographic displays
-
The technology may have gotten better since the old days, but it's still the same hokey crap as it's always been. People claim Avatar in the theaters looked amazing in 3D, but eh... I never bothered to see it.
Even if it did do 3D well (it was shot with two cameras simultaneously, I think), it doesn't change the fact that most 3D movies use the effect in a gimmicky fashion, and I hate how so many movies now are going 3D.
And hell, even if Avatar does use 3D well for depth perception as I've been told, I just don't care. I'm looking at a flat screen; give me a flat movie. What do I care about faux-3D depth?
-
This is just another one of those technological excelorated leaps forward. However it's happening at a much greater and faster rate then it would've been during the 20th century. I don't really believe that 3D will fully replace 2D cause there's still such a high marcket for it. for example: The LP (Vynel Record). they've been around for such a long time and due to a recent popularity boom, record companies have started to manufacture them again. electronics companies are still makeing transistor tubes cause there's still a demand for them. Even the old fastioned candle stick telephones have been remodeled to work with our current digital world. As long as there's a demand for something, the corporate world will take notice. 3D TV's and movies may be on the rapid rise right now but I think it's like any other fad. It has it's moments in the spotlight and then something else comes along and bumps it out of the way. So try not to feel too threatened about it. Heck! I was the same way when I first heard that video games we're going 3D rather then remaining 2D ::)
-X
-
I'm still on the fence. I haven't seen Avatar either, nor do I want to. My girlfriend wanted to see the new Clash of the Titans, and we heard how the 3-D version was pretty disappointing, so we just saw the standard version instead. I have yet to see a 3-D movie. I'm still somewhat skeptical about 3-D sustaining its popularity, so I'm in no rush to go out and buy a 3-D TV.
One of these days I'll watch something in 3-D so I can see if I like it or not, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure it'll be enjoyable, but not earth-shattering.
-
Clash of the Titans was pretty mediocre. The 3D was totally gimmicky.
Avatar, on the other hand, was damn awesome. Remind me why you guys don't want to see it? Is it because it's overhyped? I understood that sort of sentiment months ago when it came out, but it's been long enough where you won't lose face by seeing it. It's actually a pretty cool movie.
-
I just think the flick looks kind of retarded. Thought that when I first saw the trailer. I love Cameron sci-fi flicks, but he hadn't done one since The Abyss, so I doubted he really could pull it off. From what I hear from movie buddies of mine, he didn't.
Another reason why I hate 3D: higher ticket price. And having to sit there wearing those stupid glasses over my prescription glasses. It's very uncomfortable around the ears.
-
Avatar, on the other hand, was damn awesome. Remind me why you guys don't want to see it? Is it because it's overhyped? I understood that sort of sentiment months ago when it came out, but it's been long enough where you won't lose face by seeing it. It's actually a pretty cool movie.
Nothing about it looks appealing to me, I guess. I don't want to call sour grapes on Avatar, but nothing in its advertising or word-of-mouth has made me want to see it. The only thing I know about it is that it can be seen in 3D...that's pretty much it. :-\
-
I'm not a fan of the 3D craze. I watched a few movies in 3D recently like How To Train Your Dragon, and Alice in Wonderland, and it just bothered me. Movies usually have the camera focus on what you're supposed to be looking at, but in this case, it is often focused on something that appears further away from you than the unfocused objects. My eyes naturally look at the bigger blurry images, and I have to focus to see what the screen is trying to show me. The whole thing makes me nautious. The glasses are uncomfortable, and I keep having to adjust them. No, I'd much rather watch an ordinary FLAT movie. Besides, the images still look flat, they just look like slices of paper cut out of the screen. It's like watching Paper Mario: The Movie or something.
-
I don't want to watch the Blue Smurf movie known as Avatar (yes folks I hear a Smurfs live action movie is in the works), but I did see Clash of the Titans in 3D. Other than the rain effects in the movie, nothing seemed outstanding about it in 3D, I could take off the glasses at times and see the movie just fine. At other times the movie would be blurry as it should be without the glasses, but lord forbid 3D becomes a permanent fixture in movie theaters (hello extra $3 charge, if I keep my glasses, can I pay the normal fee and just use my glasses from another movie? :P). I play 2D games, and like my TV in 2D, as well as my movies, hopefully this 3D fa dies off quickly, though with 3D TV, I don't see it dying down in the home market unless it flops.
-
Another thing I hate about 3D and the "RealD" films I've seen is clarity. It's difficult to really focus on anything that's meant to be in focus.
-
Wait, what's wrong with Smurfs? Smurfs're awesome and you're wrong if you don't like the little communist tykes. :P
-
If you don't want a 3D TV Gecko, then you can always save up for the 4 color system TV that uses true yellow in the spectrum.
-X
-
Wait, what's wrong with Smurfs? Smurfs're awesome and you're wrong if you don't like the little communist tykes. :P
I'd rather not watch a cartoon from my childhood raped beyond comprehension.
-
The Smurfs cartoon was faithful but still not the original idea of the comic book called Schtroumpfs. Just hope Spielberg doesn't end up screwing up the much anticipated TINTIN movie (CGI rotoscopy i believe) and decide to have it 3D as well. yuck
-
According to Wikipedia, the Tintin film will be 3D, which is a drag. I was even about to say, "I doubt it'll be 3D, because as much flak as Spielberg seems to get from a lot of people, he really holds true to the art of film for the most part, and wouldn't do something so gimmicky." Blah.
Oh well. At least I saw this on that same article:
"The Adventures of Tintin will be the first Spielberg film to be shot digitally. Although Spielberg is not completely unfamiliar with digital cinematography—having directed a scene in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith—the director has firmly stated that he still prefers working with film."
I love Spielberg for that, still desiring film. Actual film stock has a much more appealing look than hi-def digital cameras. A guy like him is needed in this "digital age," especially when it comes to home video and Blu-ray; Saving Private Ryan on Blu-ray is just as nitty-gritty grainy as it was in the theater, and I like for films to be preserved like that, whether gruff grain, soft grain, whatever, don't get rid of the grain, it's an intrinsic film element—you take that away and it destroys the integrity of the image.
</rant>
-
I'd rather not watch a cartoon from my childhood raped beyond comprehension.
but this is exactly what the movie industries are doing right now.
And as we all know they fail big time, especially when they try to make real life action movies of Japanime with American actors. (dragonball etc,)
-
I'm not really big on 3d movies and I don't understand this 3d craze. Most movies don't use the 3d well enough, it just feels gimmicky, and I think there are a lot of films that 3d is unnecessary. But for some reason I'm really excited for the 3ds