OMG Not Another 3D Thread!

Jawa Ex Machina

Jawa Ex Machina

Veteran
I couldn't be bothered to look up any of the gazillion other 3D threads already in existance, so let's just forget about them and start fresh.

For those of you just joining us, here's a quick recap:

"3D is just a fad!"
"No it ain't! I actually love AVATAR and I think in some cases it brings something to the experience!"
"You just think that because James Cameron says so."
"Look guys, the only people who push for 3D are the people who make money from it. No actual people are going down to their local multiplex and ask them to please install 3D. There are no We Want More 3D petitions out there from consumers."
"But I actually enjoy it!"
"It's a poo pooing fad!"
"Your mom's a fad."
"Yeah well your mom's in 3D."

...and that's pretty much where we are at this point.


I thought this was pretty interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/06/3demise.html
 
I'm only down with 3D for live action films if it's actually done on set. Real stereo rigs.

3D in 3D animation is build in already. ;]
 
I'm neither strongly for or against, but I liked the Red Letter Media guy's reason for rejecting it, something along the lines of "I already see in 3D...when I go to a movie, I want to see something I don't get in real life, a flat 2D image."
 
3D.

Makes you look like a dork.

life-should-come-3d-glasses--large-msg-124787771548.jpg



Nuff said...


A-Bunch-of-Losers-Wearing-3D-Glasses.jpg

audience2.jpg

PeopleGlassesGE_450x300.jpg

57277857.jpg

SuperStock_1491R-1097351.jpg

3d-glasses.jpg

3d-glasses-audience.jpg

3330b52c-1414-4c2c-a6a9-ace35e3d72e7.jpg



Don't let the bastards win.....


Thank you very much!
41iDZMqtn6L._SL500_AA300_.jpg
 
I think once the novelty wears off... 99% of the general public goes with the cheapest (or most convenient) option. The success or failure of 3d is probably more related to that, then anything else. It's about 30% higher cost to see the same film in 3d.

I'm amazed that anybody buys camcorder bootleg, crap resolution movies... but they do, and always will when possible. Never underestimate the cheapness of the average person*.



*This is not a pro-3d comment... I'm not a fan of 3d, but I just think all the speculation about WHY 3d isn't selling is way off. It's the extra $3... or the "$3 savings to see it in 2d"... that's killing it. The newness of 3d is pretty much over... and now it's simply a case of charging more to see a gimmicky version of the same movie.
 
MattinSTL said:
I think once the novelty wears off... 99% of the general public goes with the cheapest (or most convenient) option. The success or failure of 3d is probably more related to that, then anything else. It's about 30% higher cost to see the same film in 3d.

I'm amazed that anybody buys camcorder bootleg, crap resolution movies... but they do, and always will when possible. Never underestimate the cheapness of the average person*.



*This is not a pro-3d comment... I'm not a fan of 3d, but I just think all the speculation about WHY 3d isn't selling is way off. It's the extra $3... or the "$3 savings to see it in 2d"... that's killing it. The newness of 3d is pretty much over... and now it's simply a case of charging more to see a gimmicky version of the same movie.
Click to expand...

3D will die a quick death (once again) because it doesn't offer anything to the story. Nothing. Just puts $$$ into people like Cameron's pockets until the public realize they're getting ripped off....

You just need a good story, not a gimmick like 3D to sell tickets to bad movies.

Camcorder bootlegs are just high-school bragging toys, you know the "I saw it already" spoiler game things.
 
stangely, it goes the same each time technology is improved. behavior A , nobody comments,it is just there. behavior B, everybody comments , it is just there.
it would be interesting to find what trigger behavior A or B.
color film, music CD, zoom lens, TV , 3D , 48fps, digital film, RED, washing machine, soya meat, mobile phone, electric car, botox, flat TV, HD video, DSLR for video, sugar free coke ......

My opinion is it must be linked with the fact that if a new technology replaces the old one, nobody cares, since there is no use to comment it.
if it is just an additional option, everebody feel obliged to give his opinion (while it is obviously the only case you do not need because either nobody cares and it is useless).
If you like 3D , just go in theater to watch 3D movies, buy a 3D camera shoot your movie in 3D, buy 3D TV and 3D blu-ray.
If you don't like it, just go in theater to watch 2D movies, buy a 2D camera shoot your movie in 2D, buy 2D TV and 2D blu-ray.

When you do something, there is always 3 opinions emerging against you.
the ones who do the same, the ones who do the contrary and the big big majority of the ones who do nothing....
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I think once the novelty wears off... 99% of the general public goes with the cheapest (or most convenient) option. The success or failure of 3d is probably more related to that, then anything else. It's about 30% higher cost to see the same film in 3d.

I'm amazed that anybody buys camcorder bootleg, crap resolution movies... but they do, and always will when possible. Never underestimate the cheapness of the average person*.



*This is not a pro-3d comment... I'm not a fan of 3d, but I just think all the speculation about WHY 3d isn't selling is way off. It's the extra $3... or the "$3 savings to see it in 2d"... that's killing it. The newness of 3d is pretty much over... and now it's simply a case of charging more to see a gimmicky version of the same movie.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but if 3D brought an extra dimension to the STORYTELLING instead of being just stereoscopic images, then the extra 3 bucks (it's actually closer to 5 bucks over here) might be worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top