I've seen the film - I won't be seeing it again.
3D Page 2
The Goodies are in it? 
My kids specifically asked to see Harry Potter in 2D, they don't really like 3D. Usually it's used so sparsely and fleetingly it's pointless anyway.
I loved Avatar though, but there was no 2D version to compare it to.
3D films have their odd 'whoah' moments but for the most part I forget it's in 3D.
But thanks to all this early development we might be blown away by the technology in 10 years time. The first colour cinema probably had people complaining about the price and the colour of Stan Laurel's Bow Tie.
Quote: zooo @ October 25 2011, 1:25 PM BSTThe Goodies are in it?
Some years ago I saw a 3D at the museum for film, Tv etc or whatever it's called, in Bradford. It was brilliant. I kept thinking I could just stretch out a finger and touch things. Don't know if this is the same as the films you're talking about.
The problem with 3D, is that it's really not been used very well so far. For a start, the majority of the films it's been used in have been so overexcited by the 3D, they've forgotten to actually write a decent story.
Those that have been decent stories (Toy Story 3D for example) have again, just been so overexcited by the 3D - "look at this 3D, things coming towards you, look, look!", wheras what people really want is something that just fits in seamlessly. You don't get films where a huge emphasis is placed on the music, or the cinematography - the same should be true of the 3D.
It should be there, it should improve the film in a subtle, but significant way, without being too obvious. Unfortunately, while we're forced to pay an extra £2 to watch a film in 3D, people are going to want to feel like they're getting their money's worth - leading to an overall poor use of the technology.
It died in the '60s and it will die in the whatever these are at the moment.
Teenies? Hmm, don't know if it'll die this time or not. They should have the know how now to iron out little faults with it and I think we could see it run alongside 2D as an alternative. It won't kill 2D, if anything it will strengthen the form for fans of real narrative movies. All the trash action stuff could just be done in 3D now.
The timing is good, as cinema was seeing a general slump in attendances, so this could pull people in again. I've only seen 3D movies at the Imax and loved them. Blooming fantastic I think, having untouchable snow fall around you and all that. I'm a fan, so far, but haven't seen the likes of Avatar yet.
It's not even 3D but a stereogram Edwardian Fairground novelty, masquerading as a modern hi-tech breakthrough. It's a pity Hollywood can't master writing and characterisation in more than two dimensions.
Having said that I went to a place called the theatre and the 3D was amazingly life like. It was like you were in the same room as the actors.
Trouble is you don't get many cars chasing each other at the Adelphi, or dinosaurs fighting with giant monkies.
Avatar is amazing in 3D. It's a shit film and I can't understand why anyone would watch it/buy it in 2D but the 3D is so much better than any other film it's worth seeing for that alone.
3D telly is alright. A film length is just about watchable but you are pretty tired afterwards. The French Open though, was fantastic in 3D. You can see exactly where the ball lands, which is a bit bizarre. Still tiring though.
3D games are hard-going. Played GT5 for 15 minutes and was feeling sick to the stomach, not just 'a bit nauseous'!
Dan