The last (and only) 3D “film” that I saw was Jaws 3D, so I am kind of curious about the new 3D experience. I have a choice between IMAX and Real, so wondering if there is much difference?
Here is what Ebert said:
It’s not necessary at all. I’d see it regular 2D, honesty.
I’d vote for Imax. I’ve only seen one film that way…a nature documentary at the Fernwood Museum in Atlanta, but it was visually spectacular…I don’t think it was even in 3d…just a huge screen.
I think the new 3d stuff is pretty cool, too. I saw the last Harry Potter film, and Captain America that way. It’s worth the extra buck of two.
I’ll only pop for good ol’ 2D myself. Watching 3D movies gives me a pounding headache (thick glasses, astigmatism, you name it; my eyes are a hot mess).
I saw it in 3D and it wasn’t really necessary for it. I think 3D isn’t going to last long as a drawcard.
Hugo might be a better movie to see in 3D.
BTW, I saw a trailer for the Star Wars films in 3D and they looked okay, quality-wise, but it remained an unnecessary gimmick for it. The excitement level did not increase.
Even after seeing a few movies where its implementation has generally been regarded as better than most (“Up”, “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”, etc.) I don’t care for 3D at all - 2D only for me.
My sister took my kids to go see it. They thought the previews had better 3D effects than the movie did.
We saw Tintin in 2D and enjoyed it just fine without the extra cost and headache. I’ve seen Hugo in 3D and in 2D. Both versions were wonderful.
Just got back. Saw it in Real3D, and it was amazing. I was totally immersed. Had no problems with eyestrain, no headaches. The theater was sparsely populated, so I was able to sit on center about 1/3 of the way back. I walked to the side, and the effect deteriorated very noticeably, so maybe that is the reason some have had a bad experience.
One of the best movies I have seen in a long time! It would have lost a lot in 2D, IMHO.
What do you think it would have lost? Because this is exactly my problem with it. I can come up with what lack of color causes you to lose out on: it can be hard to distinguish items in black-and-white. What does 3D give?
It is the difference between closing one eye and not. It just made everything look more realistic and awesome. The way they handled it, it was not done for shock or effect and done very naturally. I am sad, because now I want to take my girlfriend and she has strabismus so can’t see it in 3D. To me the movie was made for it and it adds a lot. It is like you are in TinTin’s world!
If you don’t get it, I can’t describe it. I was really, really, really farking impressed!
And just everything. The movie was directed with 3D in mind. All the shots just line up great with 3D. A lot of the action sequences are much more fun with it. Again, if you don’t get it, I can’t explain.
And again, have you seen it? Go see it in 3D and then come back and ask why.
I’ve never had trouble distinguishing items in black & white…which items threw you off?
Presence. The world appears to exist in real-space, instead of looking at it through a (large) TV screen.
And I would add to Red Barchetta’s comment, it is just another creative choice a filmmaker has. Even today, a director might choose to use black and white, or color, or now 3D if it is appropriate to the material. 3D is SOOO appropriate to TinTin, I can hardly think you would want to see the movie any other way. Some movies use 3D as a gimmick, but not this one. It was designed from the get-go to be experienced that way.