3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches

[RGA]

I don't find that 3D adds anything to the experience - it detracts from it IME - but it could be that the movies sucked anyway. Clash of the Titans was really bad and Avatar to me was only okay. I didn't find the visual effects all that great either - sorry but watching half a cartoon and half people is not my idea of great special effects and adding 3D is just a gimmick to me.

Another case of people in some board room saying "look at this technology we can use isn't it cool" and no one bothering to ask "but should we?"

I think you go to the the people who teach film school at universities - arguably American's top film Critic Roger Ebert and I think he's right. I would argue that we don't need to suck all the imagination out of the viewer.

Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - The Daily Beast

His point 3 was a continuous annoyance in Avatar - Avatar in 3d looks absolutely fake all the time. I see the 2d screen and then I see a kind of overlay - 3d is just junk and I'm amazed so many people let all these obvious problems slip by. Avatar was also a mediocre movie with some horrible 2D cardboard characters - maybe they knew this so throw a bunch of visuals at the screen to make it seem better. ugh.

Roger's 9th point mirrors an article that notes the movie theater industry may be in some big trouble and very soon. If people are like me and some of them at least are - I was a guy who went to 64 movies in the theaters in one year. This year I have seen maybe 4. Apparently viewership at the movies is down nearly 10% this year from last.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't find that 3D adds anything to the experience - it detracts from it IME - but it could be that the movies sucked anyway. Clash of the Titans was really bad and Avatar to me was only okay. I didn't find the visual effects all that great either - sorry but watching half a cartoon and half people is not my idea of great special effects and adding 3D is just a gimmick to me.

Clash of the Titans is one of the worst 3D conversions ever done, and it is followed closely by The Last Airbender which was actually not a bad movie. In both cases Warner waited to the last moment to make the decision to convert them which did not allow enough time to do it right. Neither movie during pre-production had any plans for a 3D conversion, so no shots were ever planned to support a good 3D conversion.

Another case of people in some board room saying "look at this technology we can use isn't it cool" and no one bothering to ask "but should we?"

The higher price for the tickets tells them they should, but the lower draw they are getting because of the higher price is telling them they are overselling this product.

I think you go to the the people who teach film school at universities - arguably American's top film Critic Roger Ebert and I think he's right. I would argue that we don't need to suck all the imagination out of the viewer.

Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - The Daily Beast

His point 3 was a continuous annoyance in Avatar - Avatar in 3d looks absolutely fake all the time. I see the 2d screen and then I see a kind of overlay - 3d is just junk and I'm amazed so many people let all these obvious problems slip by. Avatar was also a mediocre movie with some horrible 2D cardboard characters - maybe they knew this so throw a bunch of visuals at the screen to make it seem better. ugh.

Roger's 9th point mirrors an article that notes the movie theater industry may be in some big trouble and very soon. If people are like me and some of them at least are - I was a guy who went to 64 movies in the theaters in one year. This year I have seen maybe 4. Apparently viewership at the movies is down nearly 10% this year from last.

Roger Ebert's opinions are well past their prime. He is stuck in yesteryear, and is creating all of this opposition to get press, and remain relevant. When theaters went digital, he complained about the quality of the picture saying it had lost its soul when compared to film. A study of 2,000 viewers showed that overwhelmingly theater goers thought digital cinema looked as good as 35mm film. They do however look very different, but there is no "one is better than the other" to be found. He didn't like digital sound when it came on the scene in 1992. He just does not seem to like progress when it comes to the cinema. , and there is no proof whatsoever that film presentation has degraded in any way because of digital.

I say boo to him. Retire.....

[Smokey]

When theaters went digital, he complained about the quality of the picture saying it had lost its soul when compared to film. A study of 2,000 viewers showed that overwhelmingly theater goers thought digital cinema looked as good as 35mm film. They do however look very different, but there is no "one is better than the other" to be found.

I think what he said about digital is that movies that have heavy computer-aided special-effects seem to look better on digital video, were movies that depict the real world look better on films (given that movies shot on digital shown on video projector, and that movies shot on film projected on film).

Lucas demonstrates potential of digital video with 'Attack of the Clones' :: rogerebert.com :: News & comment

[RGA]

I think the debate should be about traditional effects versus CGI - to me there is question whatsoever that Traditional effects look about a billion times better than the CGI in films like Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies. Some blending is ok.

I'm curious to see the new The Thing will look which apparently will come out later this year. If they CGI it - it will look dumb - I can already bank on it.

In fact looking at the trailer I can already see the terrible fake looking CGI in several scenes - It's already depressing me.

The skill in movie making is gone - handed over to people who sit behind computer screens. They'll probably put it out in 3D cause it's "better" - geez - meanwhile the Thing 1982 is nearly 30 years old and the effects are still more believable than most of the crap being pumped out today. There was ACTUAL skill involved in those effects.

And I won't even start on the whole prequel thing. I will give ti a shot because it was from the makers of the people who remade Dawn of the Dead. Though the original Dawn of the Dead was still miles better the remake was entertaining on a visceral level - just lost the mood, the satire, social commentary, intelligence, sense of doom - but hey it had better effects and audiences are much dumber so I guess it's good enough.

Hollywood is complete crap. They need garbage like 3D because the films have zero merit.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think the debate should be about traditional effects versus CGI - to me there is question whatsoever that Traditional effects look about a billion times better than the CGI in films like Avatar, and the new Star Wars movies. Some blending is ok.

There is no debate here because traditional effects are just to expensive to do. They are trying to make movie making cheaper to do, not more expensive

I'm curious to see the new The Thing will look which apparently will come out later this year. If they CGI it - it will look dumb - I can already bank on it.

Until the movie comes out, there is nothing you can bank.

In fact looking at the trailer I can already see the terrible fake looking CGI in several scenes - It's already depressing me.

Trailers are often in a different resolution than the actual movie. They are usually played off a non-secured lower resolution server.

The skill in movie making is gone - handed over to people who sit behind computer screens. They'll probably put it out in 3D cause it's "better" - geez - meanwhile the Thing 1982 is nearly 30 years old and the effects are still more believable than most of the crap being pumped out today. There was ACTUAL skill involved in those effects.

RGA, how many movies have you written, produced, or directed? Nil, so how do you know the skills are gone? Please, you are blowing smoke here, and you really don't have the experience to make comments such as this. The profoundness of your comments can only be measured by your experience in the field - of which you have none.

And I won't even start on the whole prequel thing. I will give ti a shot because it was from the makers of the people who remade Dawn of the Dead. Though the original Dawn of the Dead was still miles better the remake was entertaining on a visceral level - just lost the mood, the satire, social commentary, intelligence, sense of doom - but hey it had better effects and audiences are much dumber so I guess it's good enough.

Hollywood is complete crap. They need garbage like 3D because the films have zero merit.

If you really think Hollywood is crap, stop buying movies, stop going to the theater, and get Hollywood out of your mind altogether. At this point I have grown tired of your uniformed BS in regards to this subject. Put your action where your mouth is, give up on filmmaking and video, and there is no need for your negative comments going forward. Whatever you do, please stop framing your comments like you are a veteran filmmaker unhappy with the way things are going.

They have been making bad movies as long as film has been in existence, so don't try and act like this is a new occurance. This Hollywood is no worse than Hollywood of the 40's and 50's