Star Wars 3D

Columbo · 1 Oct 2010 at 11:19

3D should **** **f and die as far as I'm concerned and so should Lucas.

As said before he's tarnished Indy with the abomination that is Indy 4, he's killed the Star Wars prequels by making them boring, political drivel with about as much charm as a starving pack of wolves with rabies.

They are then going to try and charge about £6 more at the cinema for the privilege and then you've still gotta watch the film through some stupid cheaply made uncomfortable coloured cling film lenses that make the picture just a ruddy blurry as if I was not wearing them to watch a 3D film.

3D is actually keeping me away from the flicks of late, especially when I can buy the Blu-Ray release for cheaper than it would cost to watch it at the Cinema.

3D - No thanks...
3D Star Wars - Deffo no thanks

HeX · 1 Oct 2010 at 11:27

ManCuBuS said:
then you've still gotta watch the film through some stupid cheaply made uncomfortable coloured cling film lenses that make the picture just a ruddy blurry as if I was not wearing them to watch a 3D film.

You do realise this isn't how 3D works at cinemas now... right? :|

Vonhelmet · 1 Oct 2010 at 11:37

HeX said:
You do realise this isn't how 3D works at cinemas now... right? :|

Just because the glasses are better doesn't suddenly mean the technology is flawless.

Columbo · 1 Oct 2010 at 11:40

HeX said:
You do realise this isn't how 3D works at cinemas now... right? :|

It works exactly how I described. Cheap plastic is put between my perfectly calibrated eyesight and the screen. No thanks.

I've been to see a few films in 3D but Ive seen Toy Story 3 in both 3D and 2D and the film was far better in 2D, no question.

HeX · 1 Oct 2010 at 11:43

Sounds like your cinema is rubbish then.

The 3D films i've seen have all been crystal clear (due to digital projectors rather than old school ones).

And the glasses didn't make anything blurry, other than the feeling of wearing glasses they didn't effect the clarity of the image at all.

Vonhelmet · 1 Oct 2010 at 12:22

HeX said:
Sounds like your cinema is rubbish then.

The 3D films i've seen have all been crystal clear (due to digital projectors rather than old school ones).

And the glasses didn't make anything blurry, other than the feeling of wearing glasses they didn't effect the clarity of the image at all.

But the 3D effect is still a cheap trick and not really all that impressive considering how heavily it's hyped.

jp_bl_68 · 1 Oct 2010 at 12:30

...reach out and cop a feel of big blue knocker

HeX · 1 Oct 2010 at 12:38

vonhelmet said:
But the 3D effect is still a cheap trick and not really all that impressive considering how heavily it's hyped.

Depends on the movie, some it works quite well, the cliche example being Avatar which made great use of 3D.

The ash floating down, and the starting scene with the water droplets floating etc were fantastic.

It's not something that needs to be in every movie though.

Right now it seems that every movie has to have some sort of flying scene in it just to make use of the 3D.

Vonhelmet · 1 Oct 2010 at 12:54

HeX said:
Depends on the movie, some it works quite well, the cliche example being Avatar which made great use of 3D.

The ash floating down, and the starting scene with the water droplets floating etc were fantastic.

I saw Avatar. The environments were more impressive than the 3D. I could have done without that to be honest. Some scenes did look quite good, but other scenes looked like little cardboard dioramas with 2D figures placed at varying depths throughout the scene.

HeX said:
It's not something that needs to be in every movie though.

Right now it seems that every movie has to have some sort of flying scene in it just to make use of the 3D.

Definitely true.

The trouble with the 3D scenes is that your eye is tricked into thinking it's looking at a 3D scene, but you can only look at which bit of the scene they want you to, because the rest is understandably out of focus. If you then try to look around and focus at other things, it doesn't work, which is jarring and breaks the illusion, and can also give people headaches and whatnot.

Until we have holograms, it's just not going to work, because you're presenting a 3D scene on a fixed plane.

Flibster · 1 Oct 2010 at 13:51

Star Wars - Yay!
3d - Boo!

George Lucas should take a look at what Adywan did to A New Hope - other than a couple of little elements that I'm not a fan of - it's superbly done. I can't wait for his versions of Empire and Jedi.

Once 3d stops making the other half get a migraine, throw up or pass out, and they come up with a way that doesn't screw with the calibration of the screens - then I'll be interested in it. Until then, it's a gimmick.

SteveOBHave · 1 Oct 2010 at 13:59

vonhelmet said:
I saw Avatar. The environments were more impressive than the 3D. I could have done without that to be honest. Some scenes did look quite good, but other scenes looked like little cardboard dioramas with 2D figures placed at varying depths throughout the scene.

I entirely agree - Avatar was just one or two nice effects mixed in with overwrought extreme depth of field editing and cack handed attempts at making you feel like it was actually 3D. I think the film was far superior visually in 2D where everything was properly in focus. Awful way to watch a film... and I saw it at the IMAX in Waterloo, London.