Neal Scanlan Studio doing the creature effects

[Corporal Hicks]

You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.

[St_Eddie]

You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.

Never a truer word were spoken.

[JaaayDee]

You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.

Hicks, would you mind telling me why my thread was deleted?

[harlock]

ThisBethesdaSea and Hicks, pretty much you both nailed it on the head with my opinion.

[Space Voyager]

Your argument about a script not needing to be a film if it's a good story is about the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

You don't read much, do you? 

[Corporal Hicks]

You over do 3D...it's a gimmick. You do it just right (ala Avatar) it's pointless. There is no need for 3D. Come back to me when we have holographic movies that are all around me. Then I'll happily pay twice the ticket price.

Hicks, would you mind telling me why my thread was deleted?

I wouldn't know, I didn't do it.

[Fujimaster]

HuH??? I thought it wasnt being shot in 3D? I agree that some 3D can be absolute crap but then some can totally immurse you in the experience. Avatar did it and the new Transformers 3D was done well too.

[Ghostface]

Voyager...these aren't difficult concepts. 3D in and of itself isn't a bad thing..but it's also not a necessary thing. Your argument about a script not needing to be a film if it's a good story is about the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

3D IS a gimmick. Sometimes the gimmick works, sometimes it doesn't.

3D use like in Avatar is perfect. It's immersive without being distracting or a scene's major feature. When you watch films like Resident Evil Afterlife, that's a gimmick. The cool 3d shots become more important than what's actually happening.

I agree with Space Voyager in that it is the next evolution of cinema. What I dont agree with is paying a premium for it. I see 3D in the same way as sound. It started as mono, then stereo, then surround, then 5.1 then 7.1 etc. Having sounds coming from 7 angles at once isn't necessary to the story, but it helps enhance the movie experience.

3D visuals should be handled in a similar fashion (as James Cameron has already demonstrated). I wouldn't judge the styles employed by Sir Ridley Scott by the uses of people like Paul WS Anderson. We all know what to expect if we compare 2 of their films 

[Space Voyager]

3D use like in Avatar is perfect. It's immersive without being distracting or a scene's major feature. When you watch films like Resident Evil Afterlife, that's a gimmick. The cool 3d shots become more important than what's actually happening.

I agree with Space Voyager in that it is the next evolution of cinema. What I dont agree with is paying a premium for it. I see 3D in the same way as sound. It started as mono, then stereo, then surround, then 5.1 then 7.1 etc. Having sounds coming from 7 angles at once isn't necessary to the story, but it helps enhance the movie experience.

3D visuals should be handled in a similar fashion (as James Cameron has already demonstrated). I wouldn't judge the styles employed by Sir Ridley Scott by the uses of people like Paul WS Anderson. We all know what to expect if we compare 2 of their films 

I wish I worded my post as well as you did. Your sound comparison is better than my no-movie-at-all, too. Another one that I can think of is the introduction of colour into movies. I'm sure some saw it as a gimmick as well.

[Ghostface]

3D use like in Avatar is perfect. It's immersive without being distracting or a scene's major feature. When you watch films like Resident Evil Afterlife, that's a gimmick. The cool 3d shots become more important than what's actually happening.

I agree with Space Voyager in that it is the next evolution of cinema. What I dont agree with is paying a premium for it. I see 3D in the same way as sound. It started as mono, then stereo, then surround, then 5.1 then 7.1 etc. Having sounds coming from 7 angles at once isn't necessary to the story, but it helps enhance the movie experience.

3D visuals should be handled in a similar fashion (as James Cameron has already demonstrated). I wouldn't judge the styles employed by Sir Ridley Scott by the uses of people like Paul WS Anderson. We all know what to expect if we compare 2 of their films 

I wish I worded my post as well as you did. Your sound comparison is better than my no-movie-at-all, too. Another one that I can think of is the introduction of colour into movies. I'm sure some saw it as a gimmick as well.

I'm just against calling any new developments in technology a "gimmick". CGI is a gimmick. Digital Camera's are a Gimmick. Bluray is a gimmick. I also find the "3D is distracting" argument moot. By that line of thinking there should never be a visually pleasing background or anything else that takes away from the focal point. I do agree that some films use 3D as a gimmick, but its not fair to label the technology by the use of some. If we don't support new technologies and allow them to evolve we would still be watching the same old silent black and white films. 3D may not be perfect now, but it does open the door for new horizons in the next decade or two.

[SiL]

3D use like in Avatar is perfect.

Found it pointless. And distracting, more than immersive -- things disappearing because they passed off the side of the frame becomes really incongruous when it's floating in mid-air three feet from the screen itself.

Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated. 3D is an embellishment -- if anything it's closest to Imax vs. regular screens. It's a nice touch, yes, but take it away and all you lose is a bit of "Ooh, aah" factor.

[Ghostface]

3D use like in Avatar is perfect.

Found it pointless. And distracting, more than immersive -- things disappearing because they passed off the side of the frame becomes really incongruous when it's floating in mid-air three feet from the screen itself.

Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated. 3D is an embellishment -- if anything it's closest to Imax vs. regular screens. It's a nice touch, yes, but take it away and all you lose is a bit of "Ooh, aah" factor.

Exactly. It shouldn't be used to make up for short comings in the picture itself but, as you said, embellishment. I have no problems with gimmicks that enhance my viewing experience. I have complete trust in Ridley as a film maker to use it wisely without hurting his picture. Films like Clash of the Titans converting hastily in post was horrible and was an example of how it was negatively distracting. I was too busy concentrating on how poor it looked rather than concentrating on how poor the film was.

[Fujimaster]

Bluray is a gimmick.

http://aintnogod.com/ipb/uploads/albums/Photos_Used_in_Posts/Dir_2/807_blasphemy_thumbnail_jpg55d812f5e8a740571bd91643a952ce9f_extjpg

[Space Voyager]

Comparing 3D to 7.1 sound is the most accurate analogy I've heard. People keep trying to compare it to the introduction of sound, or colour, but that's bullshit; those things genuinely changed how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres could be communicated.

I simply can not agree. In my view (and I am perfectly capable of understanding that your view is different) using 3D is an introduction of depth into the picture, therefore it is MOST comparable to introduction of colour. And to me, adding depth does genuinely change how ideas, themes, moods and atmospheres can be communicated just as much as shift from BW to colour.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Well stated Space Voyager.