4 ms·
Gimmicky as 3D may be right now, this is just typical "get off my lawn" trolling. His arguments boil down to: 1) We got along fine without it before, so adding
by gdl 16y ago
Gimmicky as 3D may be right now, this is just typical "get off my lawn" trolling. His arguments boil down to:
1) We got along fine without it before, so adding it would be somewhere between worthless and a net loss artistically.
2) The early implementations available now are still awkward.
3) People make money from it.
His same arguments can be applied pretty much point-for-point against introducing sound or color, or creating TV at all. Or print. If the Epic of Gilgamesh was only told in person and passed down through oral history, well by golly, that should be good enough for us. Anything more is just cheapening the art!
- petervandijck 16y ago4) The experience sucks. After my second 3d movie, I've vowed never to pay for a 3D ticket again. The experience is actually worse than 2D, it makes it harder to focus on certain parts of the screen etc. Even in Avatar the 3D wasn't very good. And his point about 48fps rings true, although I've never seen it.
- garyrichardson 16y agoGive it time. The tech is still pretty new. I've only seen one move in 3d: avatar. I thought it was pretty amazing to look at. With any new technology, there are trade offs. This goes for movie from b+w to color, color to digital, etc. For the move to 3d, some parts of the screen are not in focus. Don't try and look at them directly. Let your eyes be drawn to the parts in focus and you won't have a problem. That's how the director wanted it any way (this goes for 2d movies too, it's just used less frequently).
- paradoja 16y ago> Give it time. The tech is still pretty new. Yeah, it's only about 100 years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#History).