3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Post by **Atheist-Lite** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:11 pm

http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/8687/l ... ffice.html

Looks Like 3-D Trend Is Over At Box Office

You have to say one thing about the new "Conan: The Barbarian" film. It finished just ahead of what the original Arnold Schwarzenegger one did. That is, if you don't adjust for inflation.

The project, starring "Game of Thrones" and "Stargate: Atlantis" alum Jason Momoa, bombed at the box office. It earned $10 million in its opening weekend, finishing well behind the rest of the pack, including "Spy Kids: All the Time in the World." And the top two films -- although they were not new films -- were two of the few that were not in 3-D.

(continued)

Post by **Animavore** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:13 pm

Told you

Post by **PsychoSerenity** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:44 pm

Next time they bring it back it'll be without the glasses and it will finally catch on.

Post by **drl2** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:21 pm

Good riddance. Again.

Post by **Posse Comitatus** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:41 pm

I saw Pina in 3D and it worked incredibly well- the key was the sound mixing. I saw a couple other 3D films after and that was the glaring distinction.

Oh and yeah okay so I went to see a contemporary dance film but there's nothing even remotely gay about it before anyone says anything.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:53 pm

I thought "Avatar" was great in 3D. Other movies not so much. It's all a matter of the quality of the production, of course.

Post by **MiM** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:16 pm

Gawdzilla wrote:I thought "Avatar" was great in 3D. Other movies not so much. It's all a matter of the quality of the production, of course.

I also found Avatar 3D fascinating, although the action scenes got completely blurred and I left the movie with a slight headache. The last 3D I saw was Harry Potter 7/2 (yes, I went with the kids, blah, blah...), and I didn't find the 3D the least interesting, but technically it was much better (no/less blurring), and I got no headache. Is this a matter of technical advance, or me getting used to it, or both?

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:21 pm

MiM wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:I thought "Avatar" was great in 3D. Other movies not so much. It's all a matter of the quality of the production, of course.
I also found Avatar 3D fascinating, although the action scenes got completely blurred and I left the movie with a slight headache. The last 3D I saw was Harry Potter 7/2 (yes, I went with the kids, blah, blah...), and I didn't find the 3D the least interesting, but technically it was much better (no/less blurring), and I got no headache. Is this a matter of technical advance, or me getting used to it, or both?

I saw 'Avatar' three times in 3D and never noticed a blur. '7/2' I saw in 2D.

Post by **Posse Comitatus** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:08 pm

MiM wrote:
Gawdzilla wrote:I thought "Avatar" was great in 3D. Other movies not so much. It's all a matter of the quality of the production, of course.
I also found Avatar 3D fascinating, although the action scenes got completely blurred and I left the movie with a slight headache. The last 3D I saw was Harry Potter 7/2 (yes, I went with the kids, blah, blah...), and I didn't find the 3D the least interesting, but technically it was much better (no/less blurring), and I got no headache. Is this a matter of technical advance, or me getting used to it, or both?

It's becau Harry Potter wasn't a real 3D film in so much as it was filmed entirely 2D, and then the decision was made later to retrofit the format in post-production. The decision was opportunistic not artistic.

AND HEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM

3D can be used well (avatar is a crock of shit), but it requires effort to pull off and just putting it through a program doesn't really cut it. Seems sadly we're at a stage where the cinema-goer gets tired of the simple gimmickry that serves little purpose other than to add a few pounds to the cost of a ticket, and a potentially very interesting technology falls by the wayside. (See PINA)

Post by **MiM** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:15 pm

Like Technicolor?

Post by **Posse Comitatus** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:27 pm

MiM wrote:Like Technicolor?

Well retrofitting a 2D film to 3D is much the same and as much a compromise as going back and colouring in black and white films (like night of the living dead SEE BELOW)

Post by **Audley Strange** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:29 pm

I've never seen any movies in 3D and have never had the desire to. Hopefully this time Hollywood will grasp that novelty bullshit does not replace engaging plots.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:51 pm

Audley Strange wrote:I've never seen any movies in 3D and have never had the desire to. Hopefully this time Hollywood will grasp that novelty bullshit does not replace engaging plots.

I go the other way. I hope they keep trying until they get it right.

Post by **Audley Strange** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:06 pm

Go see a play, they are usually in 3d.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:08 pm

Audley Strange wrote:Go see a play, they are usually in 3d.

"And Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

And hows the CGI in plays?

rationalia.com

3D is dead again, long live 2D?

3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Re: 3D is dead again, long live 2D?

Who is online