Star Trek 2012 in 3D, Yes or No?
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
LOL, yeah, finally Star Trek is hip and cool again, with state of the art effects, but when every new movie goes 3D, Star Trek again doesn't follow them, and will eventually stay behind again. Same mistake all over again, and the fans even support this. LOL.
3-D is a gimmick, yes. But so are surround sound and color.
They should definitely shoot it in IMAX (none of that fake 35mm-blown-up-then-put-through-noise-reduction stuff, they should shoot it on 70mm), because that is a genuine improvement over 35mm and nobody can really disagree with that. But 3D on the other hand is a waste of money. 3D is considered an improvement by some people, other people can't stand it, and people with eyesight problems can't even experience it. 3D is a subjective thing, while on the other hand, nobody can deny that a larger picture with more detail is an improvement.
Colour film isn't a gimmick because the human eye is capable of perceiving more than shades of grey. It's a genuine improvement for everyone but the truly colour blind. Surround sound I guess could be considered a gimmick, but it's been the standard in cinema for so long that if everyone started using stereo, it would sound weak and lifeless. Surround sound is only a real gimmick in certain applications like gaming (stereo is more than enough with a good pair of headphones) and music, where it just sounds too overwhelming (I guess stereo must have been overwhelming at first as well, but stereo still caught on relatively while quadrophonic sound has been around for decades and nobody really cares).
Colour film isn't a gimmick because the human eye is capable of perceiving more than shades of grey. It's a genuine improvement for everyone but the truly colour blind. Surround sound I guess could be considered a gimmick, but it's been the standard in cinema for so long that if everyone started using stereo, it would sound weak and lifeless. Surround sound is only a real gimmick in certain applications like gaming (stereo is more than enough with a good pair of headphones) and music, where it just sounds too overwhelming (I guess stereo must have been overwhelming at first as well, but stereo still caught on relatively while quadrophonic sound has been around for decades and nobody really cares).
I voted no...3D is a fad that has exploded in the industry based on the success of Avatar which was a movie conceptually designed for 3D. I don't think doing films just for the sake of having them in 3D is going to work and once people start seeing that these films are going to suck in 3D then the fad will start to end. If there was a reason for Star Trek II to be filmed in 3D like there was for Avatar then maybe it would work. Otherwise just film it normally. There was an excellent article/interview that was done with Cameron in Jan or Feb where he stated that he thought Hollywood didn't understand what he was trying to do with Avatar...if I can find it again i'll post it.
And the human eyes are capable of perceiving 3-dimensional images.
Oh, it can only be shown in certain theaters, the screen is way too huge if you sit in the front rows...
And
http://www.helium.com/items/792938-is-imax-the-future-for-the-movie-industry
But is how you see 3-D at the movie the natural way you see in three dimensions? It's different than just color film.
The color you see on film is also not the natural way you see color. The color you see on film is the color the camera captured, the color that went through a post production process. It is totally dependent on the type of film or chip used. What about depth of field and motion blur in films? Nobody complains about that, even though it's almost always highly unnatural.
In any case, I still think 3-D detracts from the movie as I posted yesterday after watching "Avatar" in 2-D which I find to be superior to the IMAX 3-D viewings I saw.
The amount of fine detail lost and the washing out of color is significant.
IMAX 3D is the oldest and possibly worst 3D standard out there. No wonder you're complaining.
IMAX 3D is the oldest and possibly worst 3D standard out there. No wonder you're complaining.
I've had the same experiences watching the Real-D showings as well.
"Up," "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," "How to Train Your Dragon," etc. all look dreary in 3-D as opposed to 2-D or on BD at home.
It's true that it can make the movie more dynamic and interesting in one sense, but there are definitely drawbacks to the technology, and with prices inching closet to $20/ticket, there's definitely going to be pushback from audiences.
Last edited:
IMAX 3D is the oldest and possibly worst 3D standard out there. No wonder you're complaining.
I've had the same experiences watching the Real-D showings as well.
"Up," "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," "How to Train Your Dragon," etc. all look dreary in 3-D as opposed to 2-D or on BD at home.
The 2-D showings are brighter and that's about it. I know it, 'cause I've seen it.
IMAX 3D is the oldest and possibly worst 3D standard out there. No wonder you're complaining.
I've had the same experiences watching the Real-D showings as well.
"Up," "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," "How to Train Your Dragon," etc. all look dreary in 3-D as opposed to 2-D or on BD at home.
The 2-D showings are brighter and that's about it. I know it, 'cause I've seen it.
Yeah, so have I for a couple of them. I liked them better. When you're not forced into a particular perspective, more details are apparent.
That was my point about depth of field. You'd see far more detail if you weren't forced into focusing on a certain subject. But nobody complains about that.
Similar threads
