|
gadgetgav -> RE: RE: (9/9/2010 12:55:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theieuan
quote:
ORIGINAL: waltham1979
quote:
ORIGINAL: Glass3005
Of course he's right! 3D is, I'm sorry to inform you all, a bloody gimmick that was actually best used by Piranha 3D. Ving Rhames pointing a boat motor at the camera then lowering it as if to slice up the front row of the audience? That's what 3D is for. I fully endorse Fleischer's decision to use it for zombie bits flying at the screen.
So what you are saying is studios can now churn out any old shit, but as long as its got crap flying at the screen then they are great??!!
A film should be just as good in 2D as 3D and be about enhancing the film (Avatar) not be about some gimmick to make it better (Piranha)...
I think 3D is a tool at the director's disposal and I view it the same way as CGI. Having CGI doesn't necessarily make a film better but it's a way of potraying something on screen. Director's should stop using 3D as a gimmick and use it as a tool to help tell the story much like in Avatar.
3D is definately a gimmick and nothing more and I resent the fact that we're having to pay extra just to see a visual effect that doesn't improve the film (or experience) at all and in some cases makes it worse (anyone remember Clash of the Titans?).
It's also not fair on visually impaired people who can't see 3D (with or without prescription glasses), but can see fine in 2D, not being given an option to see the films they want to see in 2D.
|
|
|
|
