Poll: Do you go to the theater for 3D re-releases?
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, only for movies from my childhood that i have not been able to see when i was a child due to me being too young. Like Lion King and Jurassic Park.
I avoid all things 3D in the hope that they will eventually get bored of the gimmick, and it can fuck off again for another 30 years.
This is what current 3D looks like to me...
It's just shitty.
This is what current 3D looks like to me...
It's just shitty.
I've only seen 2 movies in 3D. Prometheus and The Hobbit. The scene in Prometheus when David is in the Engineer ship and activates the navigational system is noteworthy and The Hobbit was gorgeous, especially the vistas and anything involving flying insects and giant eagles.
That being said I don't think all movies should be shown in 3D and hollywood is currently obsessed with making any dumb movie and adding "3D" in the title. They seem to get into this trend every 30 years or so so it's nothing new, just annoying. Also the movies looks way too dark and devoid of contrast and once your eyes adjust, unless it's an absolutely visually dynamic scene, it kind of all looks the same or kind of cardboard cut-out like at best. Let's not forget all the post-converted films and all the gimicky scenes lots of films resort to and this is why I generally avoid 3D.
That being said I don't think all movies should be shown in 3D and hollywood is currently obsessed with making any dumb movie and adding "3D" in the title. They seem to get into this trend every 30 years or so so it's nothing new, just annoying. Also the movies looks way too dark and devoid of contrast and once your eyes adjust, unless it's an absolutely visually dynamic scene, it kind of all looks the same or kind of cardboard cut-out like at best. Let's not forget all the post-converted films and all the gimicky scenes lots of films resort to and this is why I generally avoid 3D.
No, because as of yet nothing has come out as a rerelease that I believe will 1 have the experience enhanced with 3D and two is something that I like enough to pay to see it in 3D. I might for one of the better Star Wars movie, assuming they continue making the 3D adaptations and the 3D is actually good.
Also, let it be noted that, when done right, 3D is awesome. Life of Pi had some excellent 3D and the movie was better for it.
Also, let it be noted that, when done right, 3D is awesome. Life of Pi had some excellent 3D and the movie was better for it.
Lol. Yup. That is exactly what I meant by looking like cardboard cutouts. Reminds me of those shoe box dioramas we used to make in elementary school.Private Custard said:I avoid all things 3D in the hope that they will eventually get bored of the gimmick, and it can fuck off again for another 30 years.
This is what current 3D looks like to me...
It's just shitty.
You're not working for the theater industry, right?Owyn_Merrilin said:
Your description actually makes me want to go see it now. The worst part of 3D has always been the pop-book effect, which mostly occur due to the 2D film being "converted" to 3D and was something that I thought you couldn't get around.
But from your description, a company that actually knows what the hell they're doing and take the time to do it gets you a 3D effect that DOESN'T look like ass. I will have to consider this new development...
Not an employee, and not even all that satisfied of a customer (why do you think I have the home theater?tippy2k2 said:You're not working for the theater industry, right?Owyn_Merrilin said:
Your description actually makes me want to go see it now. The worst part of 3D has always been the pop-book effect, which mostly occur due to the 2D film being "converted" to 3D and was something that I thought you couldn't get around.
But from your description, a company that actually knows what the hell they're doing and take the time to do it gets you a 3D effect that DOESN'T look like ass. I will have to consider this new development...
), just someone who loves movies As for the popup book effect, it's a shortcut. As I understand it, the level to which an upconversion looks 3D depends on just how many layers (think an MRI machine) the people doing it are willing to digitally cut out and move forward or backwards. Most studios, especially if they're just doing a quick job for a current release, stop at the cardboard cutouts. For that one movie, at least, ILM did a mindboggling amount of work getting it right. It's one of those technical achievements that you'd tend to think of as theoretically possible, but not realistically feasible given budget and time constraints. But somehow they did it.
It leaves me optimistic for Jurassic Park 3D[footnote]ILM did the original effects, so it's possible they're doing the upconversion. I haven't actually bothered to check, though[/footnote], but even if the 3D sucks, I don't care. It's one of my favorite movies ever on the big screen, and unlike Star Wars, I was too young for this one the last time around.
No i wouldn't because it was not intended for the original film. If the original film needed 3D then it would have had it, if it didn't then it is just like DLC hats and weapon skins in video games, i'm sure some people would buy it but i don't see the point myself.
I saw Star Wars Ep I in 3d. I have vowed to see the rest. Not because it was good, but because it's just a thing my friends and I would like to do.
I try and avoid 3D movies if I can, because to me the 3D doesnt really enhance the movie in anyway. I dont know why film makers have suddenly decided to go back to 3D after so many years, but I wish they would stop it already. However there are still films I would like to see them re-release in the cinemas - just not in 3D.
I will now enter rambling mode.Not Matt said:
I can't speak for PS3s or 360s but I have a Wii. While I agree the system wasn't worth it for its original price (I mostly bought it because my older sister wanted it and my brother was curious and we piled our money together) the motion controls work rather well without Motion Plus and in some games are fun or reach some level close to fun if not fun itself. The trick is to set it up right and not flay your arms around in tense moments or play a game that requires ridiculous precision that isn't possible in real life even.
Yahtzee has problems with it for things he can't recognize. I've seen him say things about it that I and other Wii owners have no problem with. He probably has technology hindering it, doesn't set it up optimized in the settings, and can't wrap his mind around it. It's like his problem with FPSs and usually non-FPS elements. Take his Mirror's Edge review about FPS and parkour not working well because your legs are in a nether space. It's called practice. You have a very good idea of where your legs are and if you don't just look down then slowly look up to judge the distance. I just started playing the game (got it on sale for really cheap) and I got accustomed pretty quickly. I die now and then but that's because I slipped a finger or just timed things badly or did something stupid. It's similar to getting a sense of when you should move in a sport in real life. I say this from experience as I was in a couple of sports. You know where things are, but you have to visualize and time it right to get a good picture. It's easier in third person because you can see the whole body in the tutorial and thus don't have to worry about visualizing where your legs are as well as get to see how your whole body reacts to your timing and input. Mirror's Edge isn't perfect in the parkour or fighting department; I'll give Yahtzee that much. But if gameplay and story could be compared, so far (I'm on Chapter 4 I think) gameplay is way ahead of story and kind of fun.
I agree it is a gimmick right now and executed haphazardly now and again but it has its uses and I look forward to seeing how developers of motion technology decide to mess with it in the future. People need to give credit where credit is due and not just bash things because they were influenced by a popular reviewer, can't execute the controls themselves, or just want to jump on a bandwagon. The only legitimate criticism at the trend as a whole is the gimmick excuse and even that gets dubious at some times. There is a difference between bad implementation and you just not being very good at that sort of thing.
I rarely go to the theater as is (my local one shut down so it's 30-40min drive to another one), so I'm not really going to go out of my way to see a 3D re-release. Also, I'm not sure how the re-releases look but from my past experience the post 3D modified movies tend to be insanely dark, which is unbearable to me. The only 3D I've seen and enjoyed is the ones that use the technology from Avatar.
I have not, but I would if A.) it was a movie I loved and B.) it was a movie that would really work well in 3D. For example, if The Matrix was re-released in 3D I would go see it instantly. I love The Matrix and there are already numerous scenes in the movie that would work perfectly in 3D.
Clicked "yes for another reason"
...but really there is no reason. I have no desire for 3D nor do I particularly enjoy it, but I've been to a few (just cuz) and will be seeing Jurassic Park because that movie is awesome and I just want to see it on the big screen again.
Piranha 3D was also pretty fun, mainly because while using 3D it decided to spit a giant, chewed-up cock at the screen.
...but really there is no reason. I have no desire for 3D nor do I particularly enjoy it, but I've been to a few (just cuz) and will be seeing Jurassic Park because that movie is awesome and I just want to see it on the big screen again.
Piranha 3D was also pretty fun, mainly because while using 3D it decided to spit a giant, chewed-up cock at the screen.