Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  48 49 50 [51] 52   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 9:05:33 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4414
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1501
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 9:32:47 AM   
snaze1


Posts: 291
Joined: 2/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????


(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 1502
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 9:56:22 AM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5063
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Thor, Up, Avengers Assemble


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 1503
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 9:57:17 AM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5063
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????




Prometheus, Life Of Pi, Pacific Rim.


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 1504
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 9:57:34 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4414
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock

quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????





Bait ( was great even without 3D)
Hugo
Creature from the Black Lagoon

However I forgot that this is mostly the slag 3D off Thread.

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 1505
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 10:34:05 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18176
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????





Bait ( was great even without 3D)
Hugo
Creature from the Black Lagoon

However I forgot that this is mostly the slag 3D off Thread.


I tend to think Hugo was better for 3D because when watching it in 2D the cinematography is quite clashing with backgrounds badly lit and characters obviously superimposed into the foreground for the purposes of 3D. It would have been a good film in 2D without 3D but as a result of the 3D process it is reduced and rather ugly.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 1506
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 11:17:20 AM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4205
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

However I forgot that this is mostly the slag 3D off Thread.


No, this is a thread in which the majority of posters are not necessarily pro-3D. However, if you bother to read it you'll see a lot of moderate opinions from those who like it occasionally and when used well. I enjoyed Hugo in 3D, because it was subtle and unintrusive. I really liked Gravity in 3D because it served the setting and the narrative perfectly. I didn't like Pacific Rim in 3D because I felt the image lost a lot of detail and I had to re-watch it in 2D to get a sense that I had actually seen the 'whole' film.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 1507
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 11:25:34 AM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

However I forgot that this is mostly the slag 3D off Thread.


I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting that banging my head against a brick wall feeling.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 15/3/2014 11:27:16 AM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 1508
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 11:42:56 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8252
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????




Prometheus, Life Of Pi, Pacific Rim.



I didn't see Life Of Pi in 3D (though I enjoyed it in 2D), but did you really think Prometheus and Pacific Rim were better films in 3D than 2D?

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1509
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 2:10:44 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9050
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????




Prometheus, Life Of Pi, Pacific Rim.



I didn't see Life Of Pi in 3D (though I enjoyed it in 2D), but did you really think Prometheus and Pacific Rim were better films in 3D than 2D?


Pacific Rim is definitely way better in the 3D as the 3D is really strong throughout. Prometheus is as good in either 2D or 3D IMO as the 3D is a bit more reserved there.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 1510
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 5:44:18 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5063
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????




Prometheus, Life Of Pi, Pacific Rim.



I didn't see Life Of Pi in 3D (though I enjoyed it in 2D), but did you really think Prometheus and Pacific Rim were better films in 3D than 2D?


Well I can't say categorically as I never saw them in 2D but they're a couple of rare examples where I thought the 3D worked and actually added something.


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 1511
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 15/3/2014 7:16:15 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
Oh, shitting crikey, I thought this debate had calmed down a few months back...

3D is the future of cinema and anyone who disagrees is a Luddite idiot! / 3D is truly terrible and anyone who disagrees is a sucker for the latest hype!

Delete or repost as applicable...



_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1512
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/3/2014 12:33:00 AM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 1513
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/3/2014 12:37:49 AM   
rich


Posts: 4982
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
To be fair he's approved of about 2 movies in the entire time 3D has been a "thing" so I don't think there's much left to discuss

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 1514
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/3/2014 7:55:23 AM   
Chronicle

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 30/11/2012
I really don't care about films being made in 3D. As long as I have the option to watch it in a normal version I won't complain. But I just don't get it, we are blessed to have crazy technology that gives us great film quality and makes the movie experience even more magical. The 3D I have seen takes away that beautiful quality and indeed, you have no details anymore and I always feel like I should rematch it because I missed so much.

It admit Gravity was great in 3D but that's because the backgrounds were so monotone and you did not have that sense of losing quality.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 1515
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/3/2014 9:34:05 AM   
snaze1


Posts: 291
Joined: 2/3/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Name me three films where 3D has made them better????




Prometheus, Life Of Pi, Pacific Rim.



See thats the problem, i thought Pacific rim & Prometheus were poor films whether you watched them in 3D, 2D, on Bluray, DVD,VHS, Betamax or in Black & white silent!
Adding 3D to a porly scripted, boring, mess of a film will not immediately make it a classic.
A friend of mine went to see clash of the titans & when i said i didnt like it his response was "Yeah but you didnt see it in 3D" & that is my issue.
I have only seen Life of pi in 2D.



< Message edited by snaze1 -- 16/3/2014 9:43:10 AM >

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1516
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/3/2014 9:39:41 AM   
snaze1


Posts: 291
Joined: 2/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


Thor, Up, Avengers Assemble



Avengers assemble is a case in point for me.
I saw it in 3D on release & though i enjoyed it i preferred it in 2D on Bluray.
I simply in found the battle of new york that the 3D was too distracting & hard to concentrate on what was going on.
Loved Thor though only seen it in 2D but UP is such a beautiful film in its own right i fail to see how adding what is essentially a gimmick would improve it.
To my you cant make a brilliant film better with 3D in the same way that you cant make a poor film good with 3D.
Dont get me wrong, i am not completely bashing the format (I own a 3d tv & bluray setup) but dont feel it is a necessary addition.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 1517
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 16/3/2014 9:43:23 AM   
snaze1


Posts: 291
Joined: 2/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chronicle

I really don't care about films being made in 3D. As long as I have the option to watch it in a normal version I won't complain. But I just don't get it, we are blessed to have crazy technology that gives us great film quality and makes the movie experience even more magical. The 3D I have seen takes away that beautiful quality and indeed, you have no details anymore and I always feel like I should rematch it because I missed so much.

It admit Gravity was great in 3D but that's because the backgrounds were so monotone and you did not have that sense of losing quality.


(in reply to Chronicle)
Post #: 1518
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 17/3/2014 8:27:38 AM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9050
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Watched The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn yesterday, what a fun movie and great in 3D. Animation really benefits from a 3D option and really helps draw you into the world. The same goes for live action but i never really managed to enjoy animation until 3D came along.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 1519
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 2:35:53 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet
quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!



No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


John Carter....3D made an already dull movie look even duller and the characters looked like cardboard cut outs.

Dredd....now i absolutley love this film but i was annoyed that there was no regular screening option available to me when it came out.Like all other 3D films, it dimmed the colour so much that i think i had a bloodshot eye after the screening.I enjoyed it much much more when i rewatched it on dvd ( The blu ray version looks absoutley terrible ).

Avatar.Looks a lot better on regular blu ray than 3d.I enjoyed it in the cinema, but apart from a few scenes where things like leaves in the trees stuck out, it didnt add anything at all but a dimmer picture to the experience.

Bottom line is 3D is cheap gimmick by studios to make cinema trips even more expensive than what they are to gullible customers.What also alarms me is that certain pro 3D crowd like DK rating a film with a '' Who cares that the film is terrible, LOOK AT THE 3D! '' mentality.

Just my opinion though.If people want to spend their hard earned cash on such nonsense thats up to them.

< Message edited by Cool Breeze -- 18/3/2014 2:37:10 PM >


_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 1520
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 2:45:06 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9050
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Hey mate that's a bit unfair, i have literally never said the above. Like seriously. I've never said who cares if a film is bad. Ill admit 3D has added a level of enjoyment to certain things but i really think you're totally misquoting me and twisting my words.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1521
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 2:57:01 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Hey mate that's a bit unfair, i have literally never said the above. Like seriously. I've never said who cares if a film is bad. Ill admit 3D has added a level of enjoyment to certain things but i really think you're totally misquoting me and twisting my words.


I didnt say that you made that exact quote.I said its that kind of quote that sums up your mentality on certain films.99% of the time you are reviewing films, you keep banging on about bloody 3D as if it makes a difference.After all, it doesnt make a crap screenplay or terrible acting any better does it?

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1522
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 3:00:56 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9050
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Hey mate that's a bit unfair, i have literally never said the above. Like seriously. I've never said who cares if a film is bad. Ill admit 3D has added a level of enjoyment to certain things but i really think you're totally misquoting me and twisting my words.


I didnt say that you made that exact quote.I said its that kind of quote that sums up your mentality on certain films.99% of the time you are reviewing films, you keep banging on about bloody 3D as if it makes a difference.After all, it doesnt make a crap screenplay or terrible acting any better does it?


Regarding crap screenplays and bad acting, absolutely you're right, 3D does not make any of that better i agree. However 3D does make a difference to me, i can only speak for myself. You say I'm banging on about it but these forums are for us to indulge our passion in all areas of film. Like VFX, 3D is something i particularly enjoy.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1523
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 3:02:51 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Hey mate that's a bit unfair, i have literally never said the above. Like seriously. I've never said who cares if a film is bad. Ill admit 3D has added a level of enjoyment to certain things but i really think you're totally misquoting me and twisting my words.


I didnt say that you made that exact quote.I said its that kind of quote that sums up your mentality on certain films.99% of the time you are reviewing films, you keep banging on about bloody 3D as if it makes a difference.After all, it doesnt make a crap screenplay or terrible acting any better does it?


Regarding crap screenplays and bad acting, absolutely you're right, 3D does not make any of that better i agree. However 3D does make a difference to me, i can only speak for myself. You say I'm banging on about it but these forums are for us to indulge our passion in all areas of film. Like VFX, 3D is something i particularly enjoy.


Fair enough.Your taste in films is rather infamous around here but hey, whatever floats your boat.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1524
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 3:07:04 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9050
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
It certainly is, can't argue with that!

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1525
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 4:07:10 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1159
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!


That is, as you have stated in a subsequent post just, your opinion. And you have stated it so frequently as to leave very little doubt what that opinion is.

A reviewer's commentary on as film is, similarly, their opinion. If they hate 3D, as you do, they will say so: as the, arguably, most high-profile critic in the UK (and nominal muse for this thread) does on a regular basis.

If the reviewer honestly believed Prince of Persia would have been better in 3D it is their right, if not their duty, to say so. You say they should be more critical, but your tone seems to imply that in doing so they would come to some realisation that they were wrong about 3D and, by way of that, you were right. It is entirely reasonable to look at 3D critically and enjoy it. I have a very critical eye (I over-analyse everything, often to my detriment) but I still like 3D.

Just because someone sees value in something widely regarded as dross does not imply the lack of critical thought. Even if it is a minority opinion (and I am in no way convinced there is any sort of consensus that 3D is bad) it has value. You can simply disagree with it: as I disagree with yours.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


John Carter....3D made an already dull movie look even duller and the characters looked like cardboard cut outs.

Dredd....now i absolutley love this film but i was annoyed that there was no regular screening option available to me when it came out.Like all other 3D films, it dimmed the colour so much that i think i had a bloodshot eye after the screening.I enjoyed it much much more when i rewatched it on dvd ( The blu ray version looks absoutley terrible ).

Avatar.Looks a lot better on regular blu ray than 3d.I enjoyed it in the cinema, but apart from a few scenes where things like leaves in the trees stuck out, it didnt add anything at all but a dimmer picture to the experience.


All of these comments are fair enough.

Much of your criticism seems to be aimed at the dimming effect passive 3D can have on the image. That is a limitation of the projector in the cinema: not the format itself. It is entirely possible for a 3D film to be as bright and vivid as a 2D film, but it requires pumping more light out of the projector: which is more expensive for the cinema as it consumes more power and shortens the lamp's life. At home you can raise the brightness of your screen and mitigate this.

quote:

Bottom line is 3D is cheap gimmick by studios to make cinema trips even more expensive than what they are to gullible customers.What also alarms me is that certain pro 3D crowd like DK rating a film with a '' Who cares that the film is terrible, LOOK AT THE 3D! '' mentality.


That statement is vaguely elitist and somewhat offensive. The inverse would be to attack the film snob who will sit through hours of tedious drivel from some director, beloved of the art-house set, and will then harp on about its artistic resonances and other such borderline pretentious wankery.

If my statement raises certain posters' hackles, that was its purpose. I mean no offence and it was meant merely to illustrate my point. Just because certain films are seen as less artistically significant there seems to be the tacit implication from certain persons that those who enjoy them are somehow less culturally aware or, perhaps, dare I say, less intelligent.

But then again it is nothing new. There are those who make the same comments about the use of CG and the fans of those movies which use it (as a poster with a Qui-Gon Jinn avatar, I dare say you've been on the other side of that argument). Before CG there were those who criticised special effects in general and the detrimental effect on cinema as an artform. Or the wide-screen, or colour cinematography, or synchronised sound, or still photography and so on and so forth.

You can take it back as far as you like. I'm sure in the deep recesses of time there was a caveman who sat in judgement over his fellow cave-person's cave art for using pigment to make his mark rather than just scratching into the rock-face with a stone: in other words for attempting to advance the medium.

All these things, up to and including 3D, are just tools to enable the artist to express themself. They can all be used to good effect or to ill. As a fan of 3D I happily admit it is occasionally used to marginal, or even detrimental, effect. But then again so is the paint brush.

quote:

Just my opinion though.If people want to spend their hard earned cash on such nonsense thats up to them.


Again that is fair enough. I'd be here all year if I were to start listing all the things I consider nonsense that people buy by the skip-load. But as it doesn't impact on me, in any way whatsoever, why bother?

In any case I'd rather read one of Donovan's positive posts than one which is nothing but bitter criticism. The internet is filled with people bitching and moaning about all and sundry and to find someone who is actually enthusiastic about something is always a pleasant surprise. Perhaps it is because I am an arch critic, with a tendency to see the negative, and I enjoy the contrast. I sometimes find his preferences baffling (Torque: really?) but admire him for putting them out there at the risk of ridicule from those of more high-brow taste. You don't have to de-value an opinion to disagree with it.

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1526
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 6:20:47 PM   
Cool Breeze


Posts: 2351
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

We need more reviewers to be vocal about how 3D is ruining films.Empire itself should be more critical of the format.I seem to remember that they complained in their Prince Of Persia reviiew that the film was NOT in 3D for fucks sake!

As if that would have made a poor script and acting any better!


That is, as you have stated in a subsequent post just, your opinion. And you have stated it so frequently as to leave very little doubt what that opinion is.

A reviewer's commentary on as film is, similarly, their opinion. If they hate 3D, as you do, they will say so: as the, arguably, most high-profile critic in the UK (and nominal muse for this thread) does on a regular basis.

If the reviewer honestly believed Prince of Persia would have been better in 3D it is their right, if not their duty, to say so. You say they should be more critical, but your tone seems to imply that in doing so they would come to some realisation that they were wrong about 3D and, by way of that, you were right. It is entirely reasonable to look at 3D critically and enjoy it. I have a very critical eye (I over-analyse everything, often to my detriment) but I still like 3D.

Just because someone sees value in something widely regarded as dross does not imply the lack of critical thought. Even if it is a minority opinion (and I am in no way convinced there is any sort of consensus that 3D is bad) it has value. You can simply disagree with it: as I disagree with yours.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A


No it's not ruining films at all it's only that YOU don't like 3D. Name me three films where 3D ruined them.


John Carter....3D made an already dull movie look even duller and the characters looked like cardboard cut outs.

Dredd....now i absolutley love this film but i was annoyed that there was no regular screening option available to me when it came out.Like all other 3D films, it dimmed the colour so much that i think i had a bloodshot eye after the screening.I enjoyed it much much more when i rewatched it on dvd ( The blu ray version looks absoutley terrible ).

Avatar.Looks a lot better on regular blu ray than 3d.I enjoyed it in the cinema, but apart from a few scenes where things like leaves in the trees stuck out, it didnt add anything at all but a dimmer picture to the experience.


All of these comments are fair enough.

Much of your criticism seems to be aimed at the dimming effect passive 3D can have on the image. That is a limitation of the projector in the cinema: not the format itself. It is entirely possible for a 3D film to be as bright and vivid as a 2D film, but it requires pumping more light out of the projector: which is more expensive for the cinema as it consumes more power and shortens the lamp's life. At home you can raise the brightness of your screen and mitigate this.

quote:

Bottom line is 3D is cheap gimmick by studios to make cinema trips even more expensive than what they are to gullible customers.What also alarms me is that certain pro 3D crowd like DK rating a film with a '' Who cares that the film is terrible, LOOK AT THE 3D! '' mentality.


That statement is vaguely elitist and somewhat offensive. The inverse would be to attack the film snob who will sit through hours of tedious drivel from some director, beloved of the art-house set, and will then harp on about its artistic resonances and other such borderline pretentious wankery.

If my statement raises certain posters' hackles, that was its purpose. I mean no offence and it was meant merely to illustrate my point. Just because certain films are seen as less artistically significant there seems to be the tacit implication from certain persons that those who enjoy them are somehow less culturally aware or, perhaps, dare I say, less intelligent.

But then again it is nothing new. There are those who make the same comments about the use of CG and the fans of those movies which use it (as a poster with a Qui-Gon Jinn avatar, I dare say you've been on the other side of that argument). Before CG there were those who criticised special effects in general and the detrimental effect on cinema as an artform. Or the wide-screen, or colour cinematography, or synchronised sound, or still photography and so on and so forth.

You can take it back as far as you like. I'm sure in the deep recesses of time there was a caveman who sat in judgement over his fellow cave-person's cave art for using pigment to make his mark rather than just scratching into the rock-face with a stone: in other words for attempting to advance the medium.

All these things, up to and including 3D, are just tools to enable the artist to express themself. They can all be used to good effect or to ill. As a fan of 3D I happily admit it is occasionally used to marginal, or even detrimental, effect. But then again so is the paint brush.

quote:

Just my opinion though.If people want to spend their hard earned cash on such nonsense thats up to them.


Again that is fair enough. I'd be here all year if I were to start listing all the things I consider nonsense that people buy by the skip-load. But as it doesn't impact on me, in any way whatsoever, why bother?

In any case I'd rather read one of Donovan's positive posts than one which is nothing but bitter criticism. The internet is filled with people bitching and moaning about all and sundry and to find someone who is actually enthusiastic about something is always a pleasant surprise. Perhaps it is because I am an arch critic, with a tendency to see the negative, and I enjoy the contrast. I sometimes find his preferences baffling (Torque: really?) but admire him for putting them out there at the risk of ridicule from those of more high-brow taste. You don't have to de-value an opinion to disagree with it.



Fair enough Dpp1978.I applaud you for taking the time to write such a long and obviously well thought out post to offer your side of the discussion.

_____________________________

'' Iv played Oskar Schindler, Michael Collins, Rob Roy Mcgregor, even ZEUS for gods sake! No one is going to believe me to be a green grocer! ''

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1527
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 6:43:41 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9050
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Dpp1978 has put things much better than I have and I agree with everything he's said. I think Cool Breeze that you've had some bad experiences in the cinema with 3D from the sounds of it, but as DPP1978 3D can be (and in my case I've found it always is) a much better experience at home where brightness levels can be adjusted, the picture is sharper etc. I appreciate where you come from with your dislike of the format and I'm not here to try and prove you wrong but I think there is no definitive argument. It's just another tool and it depends how well the film maker uses it. You can argue that it's unnecessary of course but that doesn't mean that means no one enjoys it. As a lover of movies 3D has been such an exciting thing to get into and I love having the option of watching certain movies in either 2D or 3D. Like CG (as DPP1978) said, some can say it ruins movies, but really it's just another weapon in the film makers arsenal that they can use.

I take your point about Dredd, the audience should always have a choice or an option to choose between formats and it's unfortunate that economics etc dictate that choice sometimes. I understand that Dredd was quite limited for 2D showings.

Maybe you'll get the chance at some point to check out good 3D on a decent home setup and see that there can be a lot of positives with it.

< Message edited by DONOVAN KURTWOOD -- 18/3/2014 6:44:07 PM >


_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Cool Breeze)
Post #: 1528
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 7:20:37 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18176
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD


I take your point about Dredd, the audience should always have a choice or an option to choose between formats and it's unfortunate that economics etc dictate that choice sometimes. I understand that Dredd was quite limited for 2D showings.

Maybe you'll get the chance at some point to check out good 3D on a decent home setup and see that there can be a lot of positives with it.



i have to admit one of the main reasons I did not see Dredd at the cinema was because it was only available in 3D and it is a format which now makes me feel ill (which is strange because when I saw the first couple of 3D films I was fine). I would say though that as a format which is proven to make many people feel ill or at the very least uncomfortable it cannot really be comparable with CGI as that is a format which is passive.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1529
RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion - 18/3/2014 9:05:59 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8252
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia
i have to admit one of the main reasons I did not see Dredd at the cinema was because it was only available in 3D and it is a format which now makes me feel ill (which is strange because when I saw the first couple of 3D films I was fine). I would say though that as a format which is proven to make many people feel ill or at the very least uncomfortable it cannot really be comparable with CGI as that is a format which is passive.


Not to mention the cost aspect, which is my biggest bugbear when the choice of 2D is limited. You don't get charged extra to view a film just because it has CGI in it, whereas if I wanted to watch, say, Need For Speed at my local Cineworld in 3D it would cost an extra 2.10 (over an already ruinous 9 standard ticket), plus the purchase of 3D glasses if you don't already have them. In other words, it might cost a third more to view a film through uncomfortable plastic specs. That's fine as long as there is the choice to watch it in plain old 2D and let your brain do the work in interpreting depth, but when there isn't (as in the case of Dredd - when that was released there was nowhere in the city I lived in to view it in 2D) I find it hard to see it as anything other than gouging the customer.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 1530
Page:   <<   < prev  48 49 50 [51] 52   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Mark Kermode's 3 D Boycott & General 3-D Discussion Page: <<   < prev  48 49 50 [51] 52   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141