Dead Metal wrote:Gutter Bunny wrote:Shadowman wrote:Maybe I'm a caveman, or someone who doesn't care for change, or perhaps a caveman who doesn't care for change, but I can't be the only person who wishes 3D would just keel over and die already, can I?
I've heard people say this is the "innovation" the movie industry needed. I say, no it isn't. The innovation it needs is to focus less on adaptations and remakes and more on storytelling and original thought. If you need your characters to jump out at the audience to get their attention, then you need to try harder.
I'm about 70% with you on that. The variance stems only from my love of change. 3D is hardly innovation. In my opinion 3D has never been anything more than a way to make a dull movie slightly less dull. It is for this reason I am not rushing out to purchase new equipment(unlike seibs, my 3 year old tv is NOT compatible). I'll give it a chance eventually, mainly because I already wanted to buy a bigger tv and another monitor...but i'm in no rush. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said earlier the last 3D movies I saw were Final Destination and My Bloody Valentine. Perhaps Avatar truely was an innovation...
Wishing more people would weigh in on this subject. Be it solely to discuss avatar or 3D innovation in general.
The best about Avatar was that the 3D wasn't used to throw shite at the audience but actually gave the movie picture some depth. Plus the moving objects didn't flicker during action sequences like they do in every other 3D movie I have ever seen before and after Avatar.
No matter how good the 3D in Avatar was, it didn't add much to the enjoyment of the movie, I think I would have liked it just as much if I had seen it in 2D.
I can't wait for 3D to finally turn over and die again, like it has been doing for the past 100 years.
So were classic 3D films like the orginal
House of Wax, Hondo, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, Revenge of the Creature, and
It Came from Outer Space they didn't throw crap at the screen to be innovative. They played with that aspect sure, but the 3D was basically used to show depth and perspective which is what Cameron did with
Avatar.
Since the 1950s 3D is a gimmick that comes back about every 30 years there was a brief resurgence in the 80s with films like
Jaws 3-D and
Friday the 13th part 3D, and
The Final Nightmare: Freddy's Dead then it died out again.
It's 30 years again, and Hollywood once again thinks 3D "will finally revolutionize the film industery" the only problems is that 3D never has really worked on the home video market and given the state of the economy I doubt many people can afford to buy a new HD/3D TV for to see a few films in 3D.
Also given that seeing
Avatar in the "Real 3D" format cost me and my dad about $35 (In IMAX 3D it would have closer to $50) for our tickets. I don't see the this current 3D craze doing any better than last couple 3D crazes, even if the technology and the process have been improved and are better in the end the price to consumers will ultimately work against it.
While
Avatar and
Alice in Wonderland were box office hits both had high-profile directors (James Cameron and Tim Burton respectfully) with their own fanbase. If
Avatar was NOT directed by Cameron I would never bothered with it. Burton's films I tend too buy on DVD and/or BRD.
I'm sure films like
Toy Story 3 and
Tron Legacy will be both be box office hits but lets remember that both of them are sequels that have a big fan bases to support them and chances are it wouldn't matter if they were released in 2D, 3D, or shown exclusively IMAX screens, they will make money because fans that will support them regardless of the format they were released in or on.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
