Thread: The 3D-quality
View Single Post
Old May 13 2013, 08:46 PM   #80
Bomber Harris
Bomber Harris's Avatar
Location: Count Zero's hiding in a cellar
Re: The 3D-quality

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
Count Zero wrote: View Post
it didn't have the bugs Avatar had for me, namely structures (e.g. furniture) being cut off and thus looking weird or 3D when it should be 2D (e.g. the picture in the locker).
Ummm, if "Avatar" was filmed with 3D cameras, how did a picture in a locker go 3D? Unless it was 3D to start with?
I have no idea but it happened. One of the friends I watched the movie with pointed it out as something that bugged her as well.

beamMe wrote: View Post
If not, people are better protected against those blinding lens-flares.
Well, now that you mention it I did find them less noticeable this time around. Maybe that's the explanation.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Cinema Geekly wrote: View Post
The first 3D movie I pay my money to see will be the first movie that uses 3D to such great effect that seeing the movie without it ruins the movie.
What would that be?

It's a silly rule. Like insisting on only paying for a color movie when color is used to such great effect that seeing the movie without it ruins the movie.

There is NO single film that is ruined by removing color.
Well, there were complaint letters to the BBC of people ranting about a scene in the movie "Magical Mystery Tour" where they had to stare at seemingly pointless scenery shots. In the actual scene the landscape changes colours but as the BBC showed it in black and white nobody saw that.
That's just one example that came to my mind immediately. Many films do rely on scenic shots that would be quite boring to look at in black and white. While I wouldn't follow Cinema Geekly's rule your comparison strikes me as defeating your point.
Now with a theme tune.
Bomber Harris is offline   Reply With Quote