• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Avatar-like 3D: Bring it on!

Gaith

Gaith

Vice Admiral
Admiral
The Enterprise going to warp; people beaming in and out...

Spidey swinging between skyscrapers...

007 title sequences, babes, and parkour...

Middle-Earth...

T2. :drool: (JC's already promising Titanic!)

Pirates. OT Star Wars. Even potentially lame rom-coms; why not see stars such as Heigl and Fisher stereoscopically?

I was as skeptical as anyone going in, but Avatar's 3D won me over. As JC says, it'll probably remain a primarily theater-specific format, at least until (and if) projectors become the home viewing norm. And simultaneous 2D releases will probably be around for a while for those who aren't into the 3D.

What are you all looking forward to/hoping to see in 3D?
 
I won't rehash my criticisms of Avatar (they're well covered in other threads), but the fact is you can't just do 3-D for the sake of 3-D. If that's the case they might as well just do demo reels for people to ooh and ahhh over (which, sadly, is pretty much all that was ever done with IMAX. They tried to do a few plot-driven IMAX movies but it never worked, so all they use it for now is as an alternate format for regular movies).

Frankly, I found the 3-D on Avatar got boring after the first half hour. And then I started paying attention to the story (hence my lambasting it elsewhere). If people want to make a 3-D Bond or a 3-D Pirates of the Caribbean, let them. But they have to make sure the story is strong. One of the things that kept 3-D from taking off the last half-dozen times is that it was simply a gimmick added to (usually) B-grade SF or monster movies. Even if it becomes a gimmick added to A-Grade SF or monster movies today (and cartoons), there really has to be more meat to the film than pretty vistas. And yes, it IS possible to have meat in a James Bond or Spiderman film. They've done it before. Casino Royale would have looked great in 3-D, but the strong story and performances must always take precedence.

The key is, is it a good film if you watch the 2-D version? If not, then you just end up with a super-expensive version of Gorilla at Large*.

Alex

* IIRC this was the first major 3-D release. About a woman dressing up in a gorilla suit and causing mayhem at an amusement park or circus or something like that.
 
As exciting as 3D movies sound, I'm not at all looking forward to upgrading my LCD HDTV or replacing my pre-existing DVDs and Blu-Ray collection. No, thank you. Well, eventually the prices will drop, and I'll be ready in about 10 years.
 
Gaith said:
I was as skeptical as anyone going in, but Avatar's 3D won me over. As JC says, it'll probably remain a primarily theater-specific format, at least until (and if) projectors become the home viewing norm. And simultaneous 2D releases will probably be around for a while for those who aren't into the 3D.
Click to expand...

Same here. I was never a fan of 3D before, but whatever Cameron did for Avatar completely sold me on it.

In fact my first thought while watching Sully explore Pandora was "damn, I would KILL to see a Star Trek movie done like this!" It's a shame that we've never seen the Enterprise crew explore a planet half as cool as that one.

A Superman movie in 3D would be pretty cool too, I bet.
 
From the thread title I thought they were going to release the cheerleader movie that starred Kirsten Dunst and Eliza Dushku in 3D.
 
Will John Carter of Mars be in 3-D, I wonder? I'm more interested in seeing new 3-D films than the process applied to old ones.

davejames said:
In fact my first thought while watching Sully explore Pandora was "damn, I would KILL to see a Star Trek movie done like this!" It's a shame that we've never seen the Enterprise crew explore a planet half as cool as that one.
Click to expand...
Hey, there's a sequel coming up. Since the first film did well I wouldn't be surprised if has a bigger bugdet than that film, and that film had the biggest budget Trek had in a while.
 
You know, even after seeing Avatar I'm not really taken with 3-D. Yes, it looks nice, but whatever. It's a gimmick, pure an simple.

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer movies the traditional way.
 
The Wormhole said:
You know, even after seeing Avatar I'm not really taken with 3-D. Yes, it looks nice, but whatever. It's a gimmick, pure an simple.
Click to expand...

So? It's a movie, they are made to make money, gimmicks work, if the 3D of Avatar was bad, or the world looked stupid then it wouldn't have made any money.
 
There was a time when people said 'talkies' were just a gimmick, and later the same thing was said about colour. After being impressed with Avatar's visuals (but not by the story) I think 3-D is now here to stay and will only get better.
 
They gotta find a way to do it without needing to wear glasses! I don't want to have to wear glasses every time I watch a movie. If they can do that, I'm all for it.
 
Miss Chicken said:
There was a time when people said 'talkies' were just a gimmick, and later the same thing was said about colour. After being impressed with Avatar's visuals (but not by the story) I think 3-D is now here to stay and will only get better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but voices add artistic depth and possibilities, and so does color, because different colors convey different emotions. As much as I loved Avatar in 3D, I'm not sure you can make the same argument about depth. Yes, you can make some scenes look "flatter" or "deeper" than others, but putting that on a level with a voice cracking with emotion or the thrill of the sudden color of Oz is pushing things a bit.

RoJoHen said:
They gotta find a way to do it without needing to wear glasses!
Click to expand...
Dude... some of us wear glasses every day. I put my contacts in for Avatar, because two sets of glasses would probably have been tortuous, but I can't say I feel much sympathy for ya. If you can't abide the glasses, watch the 2D release. ;)
 
Gaith said:
RoJoHen said:
They gotta find a way to do it without needing to wear glasses!
Click to expand...
Dude... some of us wear glasses every day. I put my contacts in for Avatar, because two sets of glasses would probably have been tortuous, but I can't say I feel much sympathy for ya. If you can't abide the glasses, watch the 2D release. ;)
Click to expand...

Dude, I also wear glasses everyday.

They need to make BETTER glasses, then. Maybe glasses that actually fit my head. If it becomes mainstream enough, maybe 3D glasses will be something you can have custom-made, so you can take them to the theater with you instead of having to pay extra for them every time.
 
Ah. I see. My bad. :) And people such as GL and Cameron have indeed talked about bringing prescription/permanent glasses to 3D movies in the near future. Myself, I think I'll stick with contacts plus 3D glasses, whether temporary or permanent; don't think the cost of actual prescription specs would be justified...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top