It was a hyperbolic take on your stance. “I can’t see this so no one should” is the crux of both. In either case, it’s ridiculous.
Yes, you hope that people come to realize your subjective opinion as fact :rolleyes:
If you’re going to argue 3D doesn’t enhance films, I could make the same argument of color or surround sound.
They’re being marketed. That’s not the same thing as being sold. How many people have actually bought 3D TV sets?
Oh, that is hilarious!
Yeah. Who cares if I hope that, though? I mean, why the rolley eyes, jeez. This happens every time I mention not wanting 3D to take off, and I think it is very strange.
ETA: gaffa, I’m picturing it sold with a 300 dollar helmet that prevents you from moving your head!
Because your hopeful thoughts are belittling to others. When you say “I hope that folks realize it isn’t enhancing film,” you’re implying that what some of us like is factually incorrect.
Let me restate then:
I don’t think it is factually incorrect for you to think 3D enhances film.
However! I am over here *furiously wishing *that you agreed with me that it doesn’t enhance film and decided not to support 3D and that everyone else agreed with me on this and the whole thing just turned out to be a fad or a bad dream. Ok?
I don’t see the joke.
“The problem with it is the viewing angle is really narrow, so you have to sit in one place and not move in order to see it.”
Nzinga, Seated got it.
It is a silly stunt, not anything actually useful for a real cinematic experience.
There’s one 3D movie I’ve been jonesing to see. I’ve read rave reviews of the documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams-3Dby Werner Herzog. It was “conceived and born 3D” project to make the cave and its prehistoric paintings seem as “you are there” as possible. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem slated for wide release anytime soon.
Has anybody had a chance to see this?
Still
Very short answer - colour increases the choices available to the director, 3d reduces them. It tilts film even further towards meaningless entertainment and away from art, and it’s way to far that way already.
3D is an option, therefore it does not. See: Tron.
So… black and white films are less “artistic” than color films?
Nonsense - colour constrains composition much more than depth does, which is why so many directors held out against it as “just a fad” considerably after economy ceased to be an issue.
Yes. Color gives directors more tools to create a film, and provide a better visual experience. That isn’t to say all color films are inherently more artistic to B&W films. It is just that a film in B&W almost certainly would be better shot in color.
Huh.
I saw it. It’s only in 3D at the very beginning and the very end. The rest of the movie is shot with a small consumer grade camera and looks like shit, so of course the 3D parts of the movie are spectacular. However, the content is what matters most, and the cave paintings are spectacular in and of themselves, and they’re the attraction, not the method of filming.
The tedious sequel that banked entirely on nerdy fanboy nostalgia?
Oh, the burgeoning creativity. It oozed from the screen.
Huh what? You don’t think something like Rashomon would be have better shot in color? The use of light would be much more dramatic and compelling in color.
The reason Red Barchetta mentioned Tron Legacy is that the opening and ending of the movie (the portions that take place in the “real world”) are in 2D, while the bulk of the movie (the part inside the machine) was in 3D, an effect similar to the use of color in The Wizard of Oz. The point is not that Tron specifically was a good film, but that the existence of 3D technology enabled the director to do things that could not have been done without it, and since it’s not required that a film must be entirely 3D, it clearly increases the number of options available to the director.
How could 3D possibly reduce the choices available? What choice can a director make in 2D, that he couldn’t also make in 3D?