Quote Originally Posted by Ajani View Post
I see Avatar as a perfect example of what is wrong with 3D... Avatar looked good, but that's all I can say for it... The plot and just about everything else was a joke...

My problem with 3D is that too many films use it in a half-assed manner, as an excuse to jack up ticket prices... Just having 3D effects will not make a crap movie into something worth watching... Much the same way that massive explosions, and other special effects, don't make a film great...

What I'm hoping to see one day are really good movies using proper 3D visuals.... Then we can truly judge how useful (or not) 3D is...
Here's my problem - 3D has been around pretty much my whole life - I remember Jaws 3D (maybe it goes back longer but that's the first movie I remember seeing) - also a lousy movie.

Avatar aside as I accept many people like it - what great movie or even good movie (that is plot and story driven and not an IMAX Omni-Max special) has been made?

It seems to me that whenever anyone has any complaint about 3D a bunch of excuses come out. The studio didn't have the money to do it right, it was a bad theater who set it up wrong, the projector lightbulb must have been too old.

In other words it's never 3d but it's always the implementation - badly done 3D at the source - Clash of the Titans, Conan or if the likes of Avatar fails it's the theater and projector or it's because you wear glasses - (I wear glasses) So it rules out anyone who wears glasses?

It also seems to me that the only way to truly get 100 titles (how many are good story and plot driven) to look good is if you spend $35,0000 on a projector. So how many people are going to do that?

Sir T doesn't realize the fact that anyone who comments on 3D will comment on the "Mid-line" technology they see. I see the technology in the theater and at the Sony Store - 99% of the 3d that the average unwashed masses see. It looks mediocre to lousy. So sure the $35,000 projector may in fact be revolutionary and better and he is frustrated that we have not seen what 3d can "really do" but I say "c'mon" lets evaluate the "base-line" or the 3D in the mass market gets and evaluate ONLY that and tell me it's great - if it was great there would be no need to spend $35,000 you could buy a 50 inch Sony or go to the movies - but even the supporters say they're much worse (after all if the $35k projector is MUCH BETTER then the theater has to be MUCH WORSE.

What happened to the no glasses 3D when is that coming? And virtual (holo-deck) experience that Nasa was working on. images 360 and you wear a headset - looked pretty cool 5 years ago and the system was many millions of dollars. Now that's a Revolutionary experience that I'd pay for.

I am now living in a Metropoulos in Hong Kong where there must be one good theater. This is the techno geek capital of the world after all.

One thing that is nice is they actually give a damn about classical music still - the local CD shop has about a thousand classical and jazz titles on the shelves - Best Buy and HMV in my area in Canada dumped those years ago. Well they still have about 50 jazz titles maybe they've been there 2 years waiting to sell.

Basically which plot story driven movies have been made for and done WELL in 3D other than Avatar. Any? Because it seems when movies come out in 3D everyone starts saying - the movie's 3D was done badly - Clash of the Titans, Conan, and some others which were 2D and they tried to convert it to 3D badly.

So which good (I'll settle for good) movie with story and characters and not a cartoon movie has been done in 3D that makes 3D looks excellent. Or in lieu of this is there any coming out soon to theaters that are supposed to be good movies that use 3D well? I know Scorcese has one coming so if there is any hope at all I definitely put my chips down on him. Or maybe Spielberg?

Was Super 8 done in 3D - I liked the movie on the plane over here. Even on a tiny screen and with crappy headphones I managed to be entertained by it.