Originally Posted By leobloom >> I'm guessing that yes indeed, people will pay more for a 3D movie. << I agree, but I also think Hollywood sees 3D as a selling point. "Come see this movie, not because it's good necessarily, but because it's in 3D." It'll be interesting to see if 3D has more staying power this time around. In the 50s it could never get past the novelty factor. While there may occasionally be movies like Avatar that put 3D to good use, I just don't see that becoming the norm.
Originally Posted By mousermerf <<<Do you picture Merf drownding new born kittens as he's posting?>>> You do realize I am actually an itty bitty kitteh, right? <a href="http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/27/128802531585458534.jpg" target="_blank">http://images.icanhascheezburg...8534.jpg</a> I can haz types. I just luv Epcots.
Originally Posted By danyoung >In the 50s it could never get past the novelty factor.< However, the format in the 50's was with anaglyphic (red/blue) glasses, which were pretty strange and only gave a limited effect. And they were used primarily for horror flicks, where the monster could jump out at you. Very much a gimmick. Today's polarized lenses make for a much more comfortable viewing experience, and a lot of the current movies (Avatar included) use the effect much more for depth rather than any gimmicky stuff coming off the screen. IMO, seeing a movie in 3D can be a really elevated experience, and I see it doing nothing but growing in popularity.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Every time I hear/see something that shows off the gimmickey side of 3D, all I can think of is MuppetVision, with the way Waldo says "threEE-deeee!" And that's not a good thing... On the bright side, I've heard a lot of people talk about how well 3D can be used when they also use a bit of moderation. From talking with various people, they all seem to agree that Up is the poster child for what 3D should be. There's nothing popping out of the screen, no over the top effects or sequences that were designed just to show off the 3D, and no story points that seem to have been written to include the gags. Instead, it just adds a sublte depth and another layer to the visuals in the film. From what I gathered about Avatar, the story was pretty hoakey and the effects were all people could talk about, making me think that they came up with the effects and built a story to include them.
Originally Posted By danyoung For the most part, the effects in Avatar that had people talking were the motion capture of the main characters, and the really beautiful design of the world. I thought the 3D, while well used, wasn't really a major element in the movie. It was just an added bonus.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper ^^I really disagree about Avatar's story. And Avatar is the poster child of how 3-D should be done. It brought you into the world, rather than having crappy pop out stuff.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> However, the format in the 50's was with anaglyphic (red/blue) glasses, which were pretty strange and only gave a limited effect. And they were used primarily for horror flicks, where the monster could jump out at you. Very much a gimmick. Today's polarized lenses make for a much more comfortable viewing experience, and a lot of the current movies (Avatar included) use the effect much more for depth rather than any gimmicky stuff coming off the screen. IMO, seeing a movie in 3D can be a really elevated experience, and I see it doing nothing but growing in popularity. << Very good points especially about 3D and horror/science-fiction. But you could say that modern-day 3D is used almost exclusively for animation and motion-capture. I'm wondering how long it will take for live-action directors to learn how to use it effectively. James Cameron spent how many years on Avatar? That will never be the norm for Hollywood. But I would love to see what some directors (Scorsese--although Shutter Island was a mess IMO, PT Anderson, Coens) could do with it in non-animated circumstances.
Originally Posted By Krankenstein Why don't they call it 3rd Quarter Fiscal Fireworks Offering? I mean this is a seriously lame name. >>See Avatar. It's an moderately interesting storyline, but it is visually stunning, and does have a good meaning.>> And apparently the Tree of Life. I can't tell you how any times I heard "That's the tree from Avatar!" at DAK yesterday.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<And apparently the Tree of Life. I can't tell you how any times I heard "That's the tree from Avatar!" at DAK yesterday. >>> Bahahaha I love it.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^ See, I was thinking the opposite. Saw Avatar, thought that's the Tree of Life.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I could relate to Anakin. The younger was cute, the older one I wanted to deck, many times. Was his character suppose to be that annoying? Or was it the actor? Just shoot him. << Funny I was hoping young Anakin, and Jar Jar Biggs would both climb into a spaceship, and crash early on in the move. I think they had to make Anakin the Padawan both, charming, and gallant, but not truly likeable, while gradually turning the audience against him over time . You just can't have a truly likeable person become Darth Vader instantly. You have to slowly build his character flaws.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I agree, but I also think Hollywood sees 3D as a selling point. "Come see this movie, not because it's good necessarily, but because it's in 3D." It'll be interesting to see if 3D has more staying power this time around. In the 50s it could never get past the novelty factor. While there may occasionally be movies like Avatar that put 3D to good use, I just don't see that becoming the norm. << Some TV manufactuers are counting on it becoming the norm. With sets running between $2600, and $3300, a 3D blue ray disc player running around $400, and glasses going for between $150, and $200 a pair, who knows if it will go over big. They are also going to be offering a 3D channel on cable in the near future. There will naturally be some people that have to have it while others will find the expense not worth it.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 <<Funny I was hoping young Anakin, and Jar Jar Biggs would both climb into a spaceship, and crash early on in the move.>> Thanks for reminding me of JJB, I'll probably have nightmares for a week. That was an irritating voice/speaking style.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 >>>Good idea ... seems like we have a MAGICal crop of fanbois ... although they may stop wrestling and start making out and crying if you play the theme from Wishes!<<< <<Oh, you are goooooooooooood. >> If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard that, then I wouldn't be whoring around for free meals! ;-)
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Oh ... and why don't I feel like I missed anything by not seeing Avatar? so you're the other person besides me who hasn't seen it -- I just had no buring desire to see it, and I like sci fi....>> <<I didn't see it either! Maybe we should start a club...>> How about Avatar 23? Seriously, I wanted to see it. I really did. But then I started feeling very manipulated (kinda like what Disney does to lots of people) ... almost like I wouldn't be a kewl Spirit unless I saw it. The longer it was out, the less I had the drive to see it.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Do you picture Merf drownding new born kittens as he's posting?>> Nope. I see him yelling obscenities toward certain Imagineers ...
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard that, then I wouldn't be whoring around for free meals! ;-) <<< Now, to figure the tip...carry the one...add the five...wait, I have change. Do you? :-D
Originally Posted By mousermerf I saw it - not because i really wanted to, but because it was the best thing to do at the moment. It was ok, not mind blowing, but ok, and we made fun of it thoroughly afterward.
