Yesterday I went to see Superman Returns at the Imax in 3D. I love anything in 3D, you might say I’m a bit of a geek about it. The movie is about 2:35 long, and they had about 4 little sequences that were in 3D maybe totalling up to about 20 minutes of content. Don’t waste your money on the modified content go see it in a regular theater. I have a strong disliking for movies that only contain sequences in 3D, I would prefer not to have to take off and put on glasses. It is annoying. Or am I the only one it annoys?
Upside is we saw previews for some computer animated movies that will be shown in Imax 3D (most likely the whole movie). They were The Ant Bully and Open Season Both looked very well done. I also recall hearing the Monster House will be in 3D. The computer animated movies are much easier to put into 3D than standard film, so we will probably see a lot of these.
Technical Stuff: For* Superman Returns*, they used the typical opposed polarized lenses, which is ok, but if you tilt your head the slightest bit you will get bleed over from what your other eye is seeing. Last year with the release of Chicken Little they used some sort of circular polarizing that did not suffer from the head tilt problem. Why wouldn’t every movie from that point on use the new technology? It is an improvement!
3D is a gimmick and a movie in 3D is going to be just as good as the same movie released flat. There have been some good 3D movies (It Came From Outer Space, for instance), but, though 3D is fun, it does not make a movie any better.
Did the movie get the full IMAX treatment in addition to the 3D sequences? I saw Batman Returns in 2D in an IMAX theater and was astounded by the brightness and clarity of the picture. 3D is not that important to me.
It was bright and clear enough to see the texture of the plastic casing of the cell-phones, I noticed.
While gimicky, of course, I actually found artistic merit in the scenes they chose to 3D. It wasn’t entirely for “OOH!” effect. In particular, I remember it really reinforced the coziness of the Kent farm, and their isolation from the rest of the world. It made it clear that this was Clark’s safe haven and nostalgia ensued. The buildings looked closer together when 3D, and the fields spread further into the distance.
No, I just mean every 3D movie from that point on. I realize that 3D is gimmick, and I am a sucker for it. Apparently it makes some people sick, but I LOVE it.
Full Imax Treatment? I don’t THINK so, but I’m not sure. It seemed to be the typical non-IMAX aspect ratio, and it didn’t seem super clear to me either. I don’t think our IMAX is all that great. I saw Batman Begins in the regular theater and at the IMAX and could not tell the difference other than the screen was a bit bigger. In this case I don’t recommend spending the extra money to see it at the IMAX, stick with the regular theater version of Superman Returns.
To be clear, what I mean my “non-IMAX aspect ratio” is that standard movies are widescreen, whereas IMAX films (like the wilderness movies shot for museums and Zoos) are closer to the television aspect ratio and since it is so huge, and occupies most of your field of vision you feel that much more immersed in the movie.
Yes, I really appreciated the scenes done in 3-D in Superman Returns. They actually used them to reinforce story elements as opposed to thrilling you with 3-D content.
I wouldn’t say it was for everybody, but I’m glad I saw the IMAX/3-D version. I’m sure I would’ve liked the regular cut as well if it had the same content without being in 3-D, but it still wouldn’t have the IMAX impact that I really do like.
I disagree. I saw The Polar Express in both the 3D version and the flat version, and IMHO the 3D added immensely to my experience. It was a cute, sweet movie, but in 3D it became something special.
I am hoping that my hubby will take me to see Superman Returns in 3D IMAX as a gift. Usually we wouldn’t spend twenty bucks on an evening’s entertainment, but today is our 26th wedding anniversary, so I hope we can forget our impoverished condition for a couple hours and enjoy some Hollywood magic.
I’ve long felt that 3D has been hideously underused (and improperly used) for years. Now that CGI is available to produce really good 3D animation (and can be used to make good 3D flicks that avoid the bulky camera equipment at headache-inducing features of old 3D), I think we might see some 3D films that properly exploit the technology. I’ve only seen Polar Express in 2D, but I can see how 3D really opens it up. I liked Chicken Little in 3D. Among older movies, the aforementioned It Came from Outer Space is good. I think The Creature from the Black Lagoon is, overall, the best 3D movie, while Alfred itchcock’s Dial M for Murder is the classiest.
3D does bring an additional element to the movie viewing experience. You can see and feel it when the 3D film drops back to 2D. You’ve lost the depth and reality and intimacy of the experience. It’s extremely easy to go for cheap thrills with “things flying out of the screen”, as in the paddle-ball sequence in House of Wax, or virtually all of Comin’ at ya!. But 3D offers the possibility of intimate conversations, detailed close-ups, and the implanting of subtle, almost subliminal cues that you can’t get with 2D film. 3D loses its effect when you stand far enough back that all parallax is lost. A 3D panorama of the Grand Canyon is pointless. a 3D shot through a narrow tunnel or gorge would be breathtaking. Imagine the scenes in the tunnels in The Great Escape in 3D, or the canyons of Petra (which is where “The Canyon of the Crescent Moon” was filmed) in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
I have a basic 3-D pair of glasses (red on the left, blue on the right) and I’ve used them to watch Jaws: 3-D on TV and I couldn’t discern any real 3-D effect. Was I likely doing something wrong, was it my TV or the broadcast quality, or what? I could tell, briefly, that there were occasional picture elements that had a bit of red/blue depth lines added to them, but this didn’t amount to a successful 3-D effect for me as a viewer.