Main > Main Forum

Virtual Reality? Anyone else interested, or just me?

Pages: << < (7/11) > >>

Vigo:

For me, it became a distraction from the movie. When 3d is done well, it adds depth and realism to the film, when it is done poorly, it can confuse me as to exactly what is happening. I used to go to the 3d version at every chance. Then I watched some movies that had fast paced action with quick camera movements and I lost what was happening on screen on because my mind was busy trying to comprehend the 3d. I decided it wasn't worth the extra 5 bucks when the 3d is just dialed in.

It isn't really a real 3d vs fake 3d thing either. yeah, the fake, post-processing 3d sucks, but the real thing can suck as well. Some directors have no eye for 3d, or 3d just isn't envisioned during filming at all. I don't blame them, most of the time they are making a film, not a 3d spectacle. The film just becomes more diluted when you are naturally forced to focus on a 3d tree in the foreground, when what the director wants you to see is the expression of the face of the man sitting behind it.

That being said, I am would easily be willing to watch a 3D movie when it is done right, and if it is a movie that 3D would add to the experience.

scofthe7seas:

I can get behind that. I do think a lot of the issues people are having is with the post processed ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---. There actually aren't many truly stereoscope filmed movies out. However, any of the 3d animated movies shine pretty brightly, more so than others. Coraline for instance, is a great movie, and the 3d adds to it quite a bit. I do believe it is a spectacle at the moment, and that is detracting. So many people in the movie business are jumping on the 3d bandwagon like there's no tomorrow. I think that's pissing people off because it's a pretty obvious sign of greed within an already greedy industry. But, they can't really be blamed because Avatar was the highest grossing movie ever. That was some well done 3d, and I think more should be in that direction. But the studios only see the dollars and the "gimmick"
I'm not a fan of the Transformers series, but I heard it was made entirely with 3d in mind, supposedly like Avatar. Michael Bay movies might not have the most substance and plot, but the man knows how to make something pretty. I wasn't interested in it at all until I read that about it. We'll see, eh?
I think the expectations of 3d movies are causing a problem with it. You pay more, so you expect something more, and technically that should be the case, but it isn't always.
Look at it this way. Think about a bunch of the recent 3d movies. Would anything have actually helped them be good movies? I think the 3d is sharing the blame for that.

fallacy:

I have seen everything at Imax,  It’s with out a doubt ---fudgesicle---.IN SWEET! I don’t know if they build the IMX Theater differently in different places but the one here is completely 100% immersive when sitting in the correct seat. It makes me a VR believer, it’s a beautiful thing.  :'(

When I sit there I think … man if they could some how get this image I am seeing inside a head display it would revolutionize the gamming industry. Maybe someday… maybe some day.


Donkbaca:

It's not about greed, it's about survival. Movies have always competed with home entertainment. The tv comes out- movies go color. Color tv comes out - movies go widescreen. VCRs come out - studios improve sound quality. Part of he movie experience had always been about offering the consumer something they can't get at home and now they are competing with 55inch hi def screens hooked up to 7.1 sound. 3d is their latest attempt to stay relevant

Vigo:


--- Quote from: scofthe7seas on July 06, 2011, 01:36:09 am ---Coraline for instance, is a great movie, and the 3d adds to it quite a bit.

--- End quote ---

 :applaud: Coraline is easily in my top 5 for best 3D I have ever seen. If 3D of that calibur was more consistant, I would spring for a 3D TV in a New York minute.

Pages: << < (7/11) > >>

Go to full version