Originally Posted By disney pete went to see it last night hugely dissapointed 3D effects where rubbish and jar jar is still annoying.
Originally Posted By oc_dean You figure ... any film that was not previously shot in 3D .. and a studio tries to add it, AFTER THE FACT ... is going to be a mediocre shot at it, at best. I was reading James Cameron is turning Titanic to 3D ... In the end though .. He says ... it will be 2.9D at best. And Burton's Alice in Wonderland ... was also not shot in 3D ... and I thought the 3D effect ... was just okay.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb Rule of thumb: if it isn't a good movie in 2D, it isn't a good movie. I don't mind movies made in 3D, but if it's not a good movie I don't care how many whiz bangs appear to launch into my face.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Rule of thumb: if it isn't a good movie in 2D, it isn't a good movie.> Exactly. See also: Avatar.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I tried watching that on cable awhile ago... snore. Back in '89 I saw The Abyss and thought Cameron was a genious, I didn't realize at the time he'd never do anything better (although T2 was pretty great).
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I saw it and enjoyed the "depth" that the 3D adds to the film but my son was hoping for more of the gimmicky effects. I told him Jar Jar Binks was the gimmicky effect.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I have to say, all movies that add 3D in post production (which is most of them, actually), don't look nearly as good as something filmed in native 3D. All these cash-ins of adding 3D to older movies, don't really do much but turn people off to the technology.
