Clash of the titans

[chiefsfan93]

Went with my girlfriend to this flick, we enjoyed it, any one else seen it or want to see it?

[mlyonsd]

I guess here's the question. Would you never pay to watch a movie in 3D or are there some you would?

If your answer is the latter you've made a case for 3D, no matter if you think a particular movie sucked or not.

[Miles]

Originally Posted by JD10367

What the **** is GoChiefs babbling about? "Clash" made $15M this weekend. It's made $133M in 3 weeks.

"Alice" is a piece of shit and it's made over $300M.

3D may not make a bad film better, but it does get stupid people to pay more money to see it, so I don't think it's going away.

Yeah that was misleading as hell then. I finally caved and saw Avatar the Friday Alice in Wonderland opened and the line to see it on IMAX 3D was fairly insane. Amused me people were dressing up as well.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

hey, its great for your business...and thats great. I understand why hollywood is into it right now.

I still dont agree that it enhances an already solid film much. Case in point HTTYD, which we already discussed in another thread.

Same with HD and SD. HD is great, but it doesnt make a good movie or show better. It doesnt make the direction and writing any better.

Well, of course not, but technically-speaking, if it's better (HD) or more realistic (3D) to look at, it's going to make the film more enjoyable to watch (assuming, again, that it's filmed correctly, with lots of long-shots, and not done like Disney World's "Muppet-Vision 3D' with Fozzie Bear bouncing paddleballs at your face or opening exploding-snakes-in-a-can at you).

I'm sure "HTTYD" looks fine in 2D but, with all the flying in it, I'm sure it looks better in 3D. I still put the glasses on to watch the last 15 minutes.

"Avatar" definitely looked better in 3D, because 3D makes animation look more realistic. (Another case in point is "The Polar Express"; the characters looked pretty fake in 2D but the depth and roundness of 3D make them look better).

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I guess here's the question. Would you never pay to watch a movie in 3D or are there some you would?

If your answer is the latter you've made a case for 3D, no matter if you think a particular movie sucked or not.

Ill admit, i paid to see Avatar in 3D just because of the hype.

Like i said, its cool for about 15 minutes, then after that its like you forget its there.

Im anxious to see Avatar in 2D next week on DVD to see if it truly makes much difference.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by JD10367

What the **** is GoChiefs babbling about? "Clash" made $15M this weekend. It's made $133M in 3 weeks.

"Alice" is a piece of shit and it's made over $300M.

3D may not make a bad film better, but it does get stupid people to pay more money to see it, so I don't think it's going away.

Ah, I was just looking at the weekend totals I guess.

Lame. It may spawn a sequel.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by JD10367

It amazes me how people think 3D can't make the filmgoing experience better. We SEE in 3D. How can it not make any film better and more realistic? It's like arguing HD vs. regular TV.

I'll give you one way -- it gives me a goddamn low grade but annoying and noticeable headache after about 10-15 minutes. Same with one of my sons. The other boy could care less, so we're officially done, D-U-N, done with 3D, thank goodness.

Avatar looked awesome, but the headache really makes the whole thing not worth it.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I guess here's the question. Would you never pay to watch a movie in 3D or are there some you would?

If your answer is the latter you've made a case for 3D, no matter if you think a particular movie sucked or not.

I really wish they had made this last "Star Trek" film in 3D. It would've been awesome.

I'm actually surprised "Iron Man 2" isn't coming out in 3D. On the good side, they were smart enough--like the makers of "The Dark Knight" and "Transformers 2"--to film certain scenes in IMAX so they'll jump to full-frame on the IMAX screens. ("Tron Legacy" is doing something similar, although they didn't film in IMAX. They're simply using more of the overall square image, and not just the rectangular portion in the center that the film normally gets cropped down to. So the IMAX version of "Tron Legacy" will definitely have more "image information" than the 35 print. Sort of like if you watch something in HD vs. regular-def; the HD transmission has more stuff you can see on the edges which gets cropped on your square low-def set.)

[Miles]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Same with HD and SD. HD is great, but it doesnt make a good movie or show better. It doesnt make the direction and writing any better.

IMO, I thought it made Avatar a great visual experience but I would hardly call the movie great. However I totally agree that it doesn't make the movie itself any better. For instance, I figure Avatar would be extremely mediocre if I were to watch it at home, even on blu-ray...

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I'll give you one way -- it gives me a goddamn low grade but annoying and noticeable headache after about 10-15 minutes. Same with one of my sons. The other boy could care less, so we're officially done, D-U-N, done with 3D, thank goodness.

Avatar looked awesome, but the headache really makes the whole thing not worth it.

Sounds like something was misaligned in that theater. It's not supposed to give you a headache. They might have had the image-offset incorrect (so it was the equivalent of slightly crossing your eyes for two and a half hours).

[Hammock Parties]

One thing that annoys me is how much darker 3D makes the picture. I don't care for it.

I'm only going to see a movie in 3D if it's deemed to be almost essential to the viewing experience, i.e. Avatar, or Star Wars if/when it's re-released. I've seen SW in 2D enough, putting it in 3D is showing me something new.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Miles

IMO, I thought it made Avatar a great visual experience but I would hardly call the movie great. However I totally agree that it doesn't make the movie itself any better. For instance, I figure Avatar would be extremely mediocre if I were to watch it at home, even on blu-ray...

You sound like you're making the contrary argument--that it looked good in 3D in the theater but you think it would look shitty at home in 2D.

[Hammock Parties]

No, he's just saying it has no merits beside 3D.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Ill admit, i paid to see Avatar in 3D just because of the hype.

Like i said, its cool for about 15 minutes, then after that its like you forget its there.

Im anxious to see Avatar in 2D next week on DVD to see if it truly makes much difference.

I think it's going to suck in 2D.

You know what might've been cool? Back around 1990, IIRC, some "tourist attraction"-type companies (of which, at the time, IMAX was one) flirted with the equivalent of HD cinema, using projectors that ran at higher frame rates. I can't remember the name of the company, but they had large auditoriums--not IMAX-sized, but bigger than normal--running 2D film at 60FPS for a hyper-realistic effect. It supposedly looked great, like you were actually looking into another room and seeing something "live". IMAX tried it as well: the Lincoln Center IMAX in NYC is built to run at 48FPS, but IIRC they only made one IMAX film in the format ("The Last Buffalo", I think) and they rarely used it because, to quote one IMAX technician, "when they turned the projector onto 48FPS it scared the shit out of you". Regular IMAX is already running at 6 feet per second (compared to around 15 inches per second for 35-mm. film), so this "HD IMAX" was running at 12 feet per second. You have no idea how fast and scary that is unless you know what these machines sound and look like, LOL. 12 feet per second, if you tried to grab it, it would probably take your fingers off...

[Miles]

Originally Posted by JD10367

You sound like you're making the contrary argument--that it looked good in 3D in the theater but you think it would look shitty at home in 2D.

It is essentially what I was saying but at the same time agreeing with Deberg's comment that it doesn't make the movie itself any better.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by JD10367

On the good side, they were smart enough--like the makers of "The Dark Knight" and "Transformers 2"--to film certain scenes in IMAX so they'll jump to full-frame on the IMAX screens.

Those IMAX filmed scenes in The Dark Knight kicked a**.