Looks like Roger Ebert has made his thoughts quite clear on the recent influx of Hollywood movies being made in 3D now a days.
He posted this on his twitter yesterday:
3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
To be honest I will have to agree with him. Films like Avatar were shot with a 3-D camera from the beginning, increasing the cost of production and the cost of the equipment so it is understandable that the price would go up for such a film. But the 3-D in this movie was simply amazing and was so subtle, there was nothing forced out of the screen at the audience.
But with other movies coming out; such as Alice In Wonderland, The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine, the list could go on. Not to mention the extremely large amounts of children’s movies all being marketed in 3-D suddenly. These are all movies that were filmed with basic equipment, and then they used After Effects to create the 3-D effects, making things pop out of the screen and to mess with the coloration.
Personally I agree with Ebert completely when it comes to this, there are movies that should cost more because of production costs, and others that should not. If 3-D is done right, then it is amazing, if it is done wrong then it will just ruin the movie and make the audience sick to their stomachs.
What do you think?
frankcastle66
i cant stand 3d movies they are dumb
Andrenekoi
Yeah, some movies uses the 3D as gimmicks, sometimes the results are ok, but not always. But even Avatar could have been better as a movie, it was an fantastic experience, from a visual and audio standpoint, but behind this was an mediocre story, some boring characters, just cliches. That’s just my opinion, of course.
pjwification
3D definitely doesn’t make a good MOVIE but it usually does make for a good experience. Alice in Wonderland was a pretty entertaining MOVIE slightly enhanced by the 3D. Avatar is pretty much the opposite, a good experience (3D) enhanced by slightly enhanced by the story.