What's The Latest Film You Have Seen?

**Janszoon** · 04-08-2010, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

I watched Alice in 3D, the glasses ruined the colours of the movie. It seemed dimmer with the glasses on, nothing about the 3D experience was good. I got a headache after it as well. 3D is fucking awful. If it's not broke, don't fix it. No one has ever had issues with film being in 2D. I also think if it doesn't die directors will start making films that are suited to 3D and then the DVD release won't be as good.

They're making 3D compatible TVs now too. I just saw an ad for one the other day.

I do agree with a lot of your post though. I'm not actually opposed to the idea of 3D, I just have a problem with the execution. The day they come up with 3D that actually looks better than it did in the 80s, that doesn't give me headaches or make me feel like I'm going cross-eyed, and that actually contributes some kind of aesthetic value to the movie-going experience I'll be onboard. Until then, I'll probably just avoid seeing 3D releases in the theater.

NumberNineDream · 04-08-2010, 07:41 AM

I still can't see the point of having objects come at you from the screen, other than the mild reaction of a "ah, that was cool, I guess".
What I hated about Avatar, is the fact that it made people ask for more visuals in other films, a thing that's been happening in animations ever since Pixar did Toy Story. So now, people see the visuals in the trailers, instead of the plot or just anything else.

If it doesn't add anything to the movie (or anything worth having your head endure the pain that these glasses put you through) than just don't pay worthless millions. Though, something good has come out of it: After the DVD, and the huge decrease in the number of people going to the cinemas, persons are now returning to the theatre. Even if (they think) they can replace the great visual and sound quality of the theatres at home, they still have to go to the cinemas, for 3-D.

As for people that actually want to see the movie, and not go to be amazed by any visual that's sticking out of the screen, it's been a living hell.

TheCunningStunt · 04-08-2010, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

They're making 3D compatible TVs now too. I just saw an ad for one the other day.

I do agree with a lot of your post though. I'm not actually opposed to the idea of 3D, I just have a problem with the execution. The day they come up with 3D that actually looks better than it did in the 80s, that doesn't give me headaches or make me feel like I'm going cross-eyed, and that actually contributes some kind of aesthetic value to the movie-going experience I'll be onboard. Until then, I'll probably just avoid seeing 3D releases in the theater.

Yeah 100% agree with that.

Like Boo Boo said.. "Rest assured, one day 3D is gonna evolve into holograms or virtual reality and all that Star Trek stuff and it will literally blow your ass away."

I think it NEEDS to evolve because at the moment it's God awful. If it improves and is actually good then great. I felt like a complete twat wearing the glasses as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NumberNineDream

I still can't see the point of having objects come at you from the screen, other than the mild reaction of a "ah, that was cool, I guess".

This. I don't get it, I watched Alice In Wonderland a ball came at you and everyone went AHHHH, and it was alright I guess but really pointless.

Violent & Funky · 04-08-2010, 12:44 PM

3D is fine by me if it was originally intended to be in the movie by the filmmakers. It's when the distribution companies force them to add 3D to it in post-production that the film suffers. And it's not worth double the price at the movie theater either...

debaserr · 04-08-2010, 06:04 PM

very funny! thanks to this thread.

boo boo · 04-08-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

I watched Alice in 3D, the glasses ruined the colours of the movie. It seemed dimmer with the glasses on, nothing about the 3D experience was good. I got a headache after it as well. 3D is fucking awful. If it's not broke, don't fix it. No one has ever had issues with film being in 2D. I also think if it doesn't die directors will start making films that are suited to 3D and then the DVD release won't be as good.

I don't think it ruins the color of the movie, at least not the new kind of reusable glasses they have now, it dims the color a bit but since I have light sensitive eyes I almost consider that a good thing, you gotta admit it's a huge step forward from the traditional blue and red glasses.

And a 3D movie has never given me a headache ever, and I wear 3D glasses over my prescription ones, you'd think that would strain the hell out of my eyes but it doesn't.

I dunno, maybe because I play video games way more than what's considered healthy for a person so I've built up a special immunity.

Also, in response to your comment "if it ain't broke don't fix it", how about, if it IS broke, DO fix it, don't give up on it. 3D is still in an infant stage, Avatar made a big step forward but there's still a long ways to go and one day it will be ridiculously advanced beyond what I can now comprehend.

As for the home experience, it won't be long until HD TV's are made more affordable as consumer demand increases and once all the wealthy people have them already, they will be made more affordable for the lower class. One day the public theater experience will be made obsolete and replaced with home theaters. And at this point 3D will be just as effective on HD TVs as it is at the cineplex.

In some ways this is bothersome because nothing beats the experience of seeing a film in a big theater, but it could also mean that more movies will cater to individuals instead of demographics, and cinema will evolve into an individual experience instead of a collective one, and there's already signs of this, with all the people who view films on their personal computers, more and more people are getting ridiculously picky and discriminating because of the oversaturation of the market and so there is a demand for films that appeal to people the big movie studios never think about.

Once public theaters die, censorship will become more lenient, it would create more diverse markets, filmmakers would be able to experiment more and film studios will start to think more about their consumers as individuals with unique opinions instead of big demographics who all want the same thing.

Now, if you think all of this spells doom for cinema, 3D is really what's keeping the public theater experience alive anyway, so if that's how you prefer to see movies, you should be grateful that the medium exists, it will find a way to survive either way.

Piss Me Off · 04-08-2010, 07:23 PM

Black Dynamite was brilliant and i completely forgot it in the best of 2009 thread :s

As far as the 3D debate goes i have no issue in the cinema. That said i can't think of a film i will be comfortable wearing glasses for just for the sake of that film, let alone shelling out the stupid amount it costs for a 3D tv, considering they've only recently released HD TVs! Give it some time at least...

TheCunningStunt · 04-08-2010, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I don't think it ruins the color of the movie, at least not the new kind of reusable glasses they have now, it dims the color a bit but sense I have light sensative eyes I almost consider that a good thing, you gotta admit it's a huge step forward from the traditional blue and red glasses.

And a 3D movie has never given me a headache ever, and I wear 3D glasses over my prescription ones, you'd think that would strain the hell out of my eyes but it doesn't.

I dunno, maybe because I play video games way more than what's considered healthy for a person so I've built up a special immunity.

Also, in response to your comment "if it ain't broke don't fix it", how about, if it IS broke, DO fix it, don't give up on it. 3D is still in an infant stage, Avatar made a big step forward but there's still a long ways to go and one day it will be ridiculously advanced beyond what I can now comprehend.

As for the home experience, it won't be long until HD TV's are made more affordable as consumer demand increases and once all the wealthy people have them already, they will be made more affordable for the lower class. One day the public theater experience will be made obsolete and replaced with home theaters. And at this point 3D will be just as cool on HD TV's as it is at the cineplex.

In some ways this is bothersome because nothing beats the experience of seeing a film in a big theater, but it could also mean that more movies will cater to individuals instead of demographics, and cinema will evolve into an individual experience instead of a collective one, and there's always signs of this, with all the people who view films on their personal computers.

On the bright side, censorship could become more lenient, it would create more diverse markets, filmmakers would be able to experiment more and film studios will start to think more about their consumers as individuals with unique opinions instead of big demographics who all want the same thing.

Now, if you think all of this spells doom for cinema, 3D is really what's keeping the public theater experience alive anyway, so if that's how you prefer to see movies, you should be grateful that the medium exists, it will find a way to survive either way.

I enjoy your big rants about subjects, you get so into the subject matter. I tend to keep it short and sweet..

I don't play many video games, I spend quite a lot of time on the computer and watching films on my Sammy/Laptop (depending if I have it on DVD or not) and my eyes are usually really good, never needed glasses and rarely get headaches. Soon as I finished watching Alice I got a really bad headache - for someone who rarely gets them it's too much of a coincidence. Surprised it didn't tear your eyes apart. It's been a common theme with 3D the headaches I think.

I'm happy with my films staying ON the screen.
I really don't see the problem with it.
Sky 3D can really fuck off, I don't want to watch Coronation Street and have Betty's fucking hot pot out the screen. It's nice that they're trying to move technology forward but I can't see it getting better. I can just see it getting more popular and much more annoying.

Excuse my ignorance how will having bits and bobs coming at us help with censorship? and how can they think about the consumer as individuals? When making a film would that EVER happen? Or am I missing something?

I think people like the novelty of 3D. To watch it in 3D costs more as well. You always seemed like a traditionalist when it comes to films, I've noticed you're into a lot of 60s films. A lot of Stanley Kubrick's stuff. Surprised that you're all for 3D.

Nine Black Poppies · 04-09-2010, 12:24 AM

At long last--I've been meaning to watch this since it came out, but kept... not, for various reasons. But I finally did and I loved it. Brilliant animation and profoundly affecting.
I watched it in the subtitled French, but after looking at the English dub cast list, I'm curious to give it another go that way as well.

boo boo · 04-09-2010, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

I enjoy your big rants about subjects, you get so into the subject matter. I tend to keep it short and sweet..

I don't play many video games, I spend quite a lot of time on the computer and watching films on my Sammy/Laptop (depending if I have it on DVD or not) and my eyes are usually really good, never needed glasses and rarely get headaches. Soon as I finished watching Alice I got a really bad headache - for someone who rarely gets them it's too much of a coincidence. Surprised it didn't tear your eyes apart. It's been a common theme with 3D the headaches I think.

Well I dunno, everyone I know who has seen Avatar and Alice had no problem at all.

Quote:

I'm happy with my films staying ON the screen.
I really don't see the problem with it.
Sky 3D can really fuck off, I don't want to watch Coronation Street and have Betty's fucking hot pot out the screen. It's nice that they're trying to move technology forward but I can't see it getting better. I can just see it getting more popular and much more annoying.

I don't think so, it will eventually evolve to a point that we won't need glasses for the effect.

Quote:

Excuse my ignorance how will having bits and bobs coming at us help with censorship? and how can they think about the consumer as individuals? When making a film would that EVER happen? Or am I missing something?

I'm talking about the benefits of home theaters replacing cineplexes. That really has nothing to do with 3D, except that 3D would be a big selling point for HD TVs.

Quote:

I think people like the novelty of 3D. To watch it in 3D costs more as well. You always seemed like a traditionalist when it comes to films, I've noticed you're into a lot of 60s films. A lot of Stanley Kubrick's stuff. Surprised that you're all for 3D.

I am a traditionalist, nothing will ever beat Harryhausen's kickass stop motion animation, Stan Winston's animatronics and man made/practical effects, organic things tend to be both more aesthetically pleasing and even more convincing. Because they look and feel like things that actually consist of real matter, because they are.

That being said, I can appreciate newer trends, I'm not completely anti CGI, I just don't like how it's replaced everything and how generic so much of it is, but when CGI is done well, I have to give credit where credit is due. The best CGI takes a lot of hard work and shouldn't just be shrugged off simply because it's CGI. I'd still love to see a revival of more traditional effects though.

I'm also an advocate for responsible capitalism and I think 3D is an important tool in helping the film industry grow and as the industry grows there will be more opportunities that the more artistic and ambitious types will be able to pursue.

04-08-2010, 07:41 AM	#5712 (permalink)
NumberNineDream Blue Bleezin' Blind Drunk Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: The land of the largest wine glass (aka Lebanon) Posts: 2,200	I still can't see the point of having objects come at you from the screen, other than the mild reaction of a "ah, that was cool, I guess". What I hated about Avatar, is the fact that it made people ask for more visuals in other films, a thing that's been happening in animations ever since Pixar did Toy Story. So now, people see the visuals in the trailers, instead of the plot or just anything else. If it doesn't add anything to the movie (or anything worth having your head endure the pain that these glasses put you through) than just don't pay worthless millions. Though, something good has come out of it: After the DVD, and the huge decrease in the number of people going to the cinemas, persons are now returning to the theatre. Even if (they think) they can replace the great visual and sound quality of the theatres at home, they still have to go to the cinemas, for 3-D. As for people that actually want to see the movie, and not go to be amazed by any visual that's sticking out of the screen, it's been a living hell. __________________ Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Welcome to the Black Lodge

04-08-2010, 06:04 PM	#5715 (permalink)
debaserr eat the masters Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,470	very funny! thanks to this thread. __________________ Last.FM

04-08-2010, 07:23 PM	#5717 (permalink)
Piss Me Off Moodswings n' Roundabouts Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: At the corner of Dude and Catastrophe Posts: 4,512	Black Dynamite was brilliant and i completely forgot it in the best of 2009 thread :s As far as the 3D debate goes i have no issue in the cinema. That said i can't think of a film i will be comfortable wearing glasses for just for the sake of that film, let alone shelling out the stupid amount it costs for a 3D tv, considering they've only recently released HD TVs! Give it some time at least... __________________ Last FM Rate Yr Music Muxtape

04-09-2010, 12:24 AM	#5719 (permalink)
Nine Black Poppies Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: A State of Denial Posts: 357	At long last--I've been meaning to watch this since it came out, but kept... not, for various reasons. But I finally did and I loved it. Brilliant animation and profoundly affecting. I watched it in the subtitled French, but after looking at the English dub cast list, I'm curious to give it another go that way as well. __________________ Like carnivores to carnal pleasures, so were we to desperate measures...

04-08-2010, 12:44 PM	#5714 (permalink)
Violent & Funky FUNky Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Midland, MI Posts: 2,482	3D is fine by me if it was originally intended to be in the movie by the filmmakers. It's when the distribution companies force them to add 3D to it in post-production that the film suffers. And it's not worth double the price at the movie theater either...