Banner
Home Forums Movie Theaters The Sidewalk Wasn't 3-D supposed to be cooler than this?
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Wasn't 3-D supposed to be cooler than this?

Wasn't 3-D supposed to be cooler than this? 29 Oct 2010 13:56 #34798

  • sevstar
  • sevstar's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 527
  • Thank you received: 9
  • Karma: 0
Wasn't 3-D supposed to be cooler than this?
Thanks a lot, 'Avatar,' for creating the biggest film industry scam of recent years

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 1” will not be opening in 3-D , as originally planned. There wasn’t enough time to finish the conversion process and make the film look as good and three-dimensional as it should.

Good.

The onslaught of 3-D has turned into the biggest film industry marketing scam of the past couple years, unnecessarily turning perfectly decent films into pointless, sloppy exercises in depth perception and bad movies into headache-inducing endurance tests. That this final chapter of the Potter franchise will arrive in theaters in a way that respects its audience’s expectations of high quality is the most welcome news to moviegoers this fall.

Video: 3D overkill hurting ticket sales (See Link Below)

Thank (and blame) “Avatar.” James Cameron’s perfectionism showed the world the possibilities of 3-D filmmaking. A visually ecstatic immersion into another world, “Avatar” enveloped the audience and held them for much longer than any gimmick-based product could have. Post-“Avatar,” the list of quality 3-D films is short: “Toy Story 3” and “How to Train Your Dragon” lead the pack. And it’s a small pack. Almost everything else is a carnival sideshow bait-and-switch. Here’s what went wrong:

Shoddy technical work insults audiences
The sudden demand to retrofit anything and everything into 3-D means films arrive at theaters seemingly half-finished. Post-production teams work around the clock under impossible deadlines and send out movies like the muddy, fuzzy, blurry “Clash of The Titans.” On multiple occasions, there were moments in that film that actually looked better when the glasses were taken off. That’s inexcusable. It didn’t help that the movie itself was already dopey and slow-moving. But the obviously rushed 3-D conversion of a film not shot in 3-D to begin with burdened the dumbly conceived product with the visual clarity of beef stew.

Video: Some can't see 3D (See Link Below)

No one asked for a 3-D 'My Soul To Take' or 'The Last Airbender'
When a mediocre or flat-out bad film arrives in theaters, and it arrives featuring nothing especially striking to look at, and it’s arbitrarily processed in 3-D, it only serves to highlight everything the movie lacks. Without a good reason for the movie to exist in that extra dimension the glasses just feel all that more uncomfortable wrapped around your face. And there are still only two real reasons to release a film in 3-D. You either have that next game-changing “Avatar” on your hands or you just want to gratuitously throw stuff at the audience. With the volume turned up to 12.

“Piranha 3-D” and “Jackass 3-D” aren’t for everyone, but both movies deliver on the promise of 3-D as a silly entertainment gimmick and they do so with every bell and whistle imaginable. And while it can be argued that severed limbs, breasts, gore, body fluids and naked men being superglued to each other might not advance the cause of art (just don’t tell New York’s Museum of Modern Art, though, because they screened “Jackass 3-D” before it opened), it’s inarguably entertaining. Can anyone say the same for “G-Force” or “Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore?”

today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39837118
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.128 seconds
attraction attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction