4 ms·

I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D. I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal t

by mrtron 16y ago

I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D. I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal to a broad audience.

jokermatt999 16y ago
It wasn't the kind of "great movie" that critics and peers will recommend years down the line as essential viewing or thought provoking, but it was the kind of "great movie" that people would recommend to their friends for an entertaining "going to the movies with popcorn and friends" experience. The plot was thin, but the visuals and action were great entertainment, as shown by the revenue.
roc 16y ago
You don't get hundreds of millions of people interested in anything unless you design it to appeal to a broad audience. If it was 2D it would have likely sold the same number of tickets, just at a lower per-ticket price. Consider that it's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are commensurate with its box-office gross, with no 3D on offer.
- mrtron 16y ago
  I disagree. If it hadn't been built for 3D with amazing effects it would not have had the hype, people going to watch the movie several times, etc that really pushed it to the next level. You are underestimating the marketing value of the 3D effects. Of course the DVD sales will be great, because it has been on everyones radar for the last year+. 3D effects were a big part of that.
  - roc 16y ago
    Agree to disagree. The marketing value of 3D effects? How exactly does one market 3D effects when the only displays that can showcase them are in the movie theatres behind clunky glasses? People saw AVATAR because hundreds of millions were spent on marketing, it had James Cameron's name attached, and it was well liked by popular critics and audiences. 3D was a footnote compared to that attention. 3D effects do no marketing favors for middling or outright-poor movies. The only thing they consistently do, is increase average ticket prices.
    - mrtron 16y ago
      As many people have posted in this thread - they went to see it just to see how the 3D effects look. It is the mystique behind how realistic the effects are that is such a great marketing tool. A friend sees the movie and says 'you HAVE to see this in 3D' and it becomes less about the plot, and more about the effects driving them to purchase a ticket.
    - wahnfrieden 16y ago
      I don't think so -- I saw it only because I was curious how the 3D effects were. I would not have seen it if it were only available in 2D. Same goes for the people I was with and many I've talked to. You can't show the 3D in marketing, but you can (and they did) highlight the concept of it. It's like all those ads on TV about fancy TV screens with superior image quality -- they obviously don't show you the screen itself.
  - SapphireSun 16y ago
    I saw Avatar in 2D and loved it. Just adding another data point.
dedward 16y ago
I've had this discussion with many people. I enjoyed the movie for it's technical merits, not the plot. I saw both versions. I don't get hte "3d headache" - but I definitely enjoyed the 2d version more. THere was more detail to focus on, and in tha tmovie, detail was everything. With the 3d version, I found myself trying to look at things in the foreground/background, and I just couldn't - not becuuse of any defect in my ability to manipulate my eyes, but because (I think...) they actually used differnet depth of field settings when rendering the 2 versions.. there were things in the 3d version you literally COULDNT focus on - they wanted your eyes on the action only. That buged me. - I remember playing 3d Quake (the original) on my crappy home monitor, with LCD shutter glasses - and it was AWESOME FUN. SCARY. So I think all the points in the article are valid, 3d is hard, for more reasons than joe average might know, I certainly learned some stuff - but it's definitely a aprt of the future, if only because our current equipment makes it technically easy to play back.

by mrtron 16y ago

I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D. I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal to a broad audience.

jokermatt999 16y ago

It wasn't the kind of "great movie" that critics and peers will recommend years down the line as essential viewing or thought provoking, but it was the kind of "great movie" that people would recommend to their friends for an entertaining "going to the movies with popcorn and friends" experience. The plot was thin, but the visuals and action were great entertainment, as shown by the revenue.

roc 16y ago

You don't get hundreds of millions of people interested in anything unless you design it to appeal to a broad audience. If it was 2D it would have likely sold the same number of tickets, just at a lower per-ticket price. Consider that it's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are commensurate with its box-office gross, with no 3D on offer.

mrtron 16y ago
I disagree. If it hadn't been built for 3D with amazing effects it would not have had the hype, people going to watch the movie several times, etc that really pushed it to the next level. You are underestimating the marketing value of the 3D effects. Of course the DVD sales will be great, because it has been on everyones radar for the last year+. 3D effects were a big part of that.
- roc 16y ago
  Agree to disagree. The marketing value of 3D effects? How exactly does one market 3D effects when the only displays that can showcase them are in the movie theatres behind clunky glasses? People saw AVATAR because hundreds of millions were spent on marketing, it had James Cameron's name attached, and it was well liked by popular critics and audiences. 3D was a footnote compared to that attention. 3D effects do no marketing favors for middling or outright-poor movies. The only thing they consistently do, is increase average ticket prices.
  - mrtron 16y ago
    As many people have posted in this thread - they went to see it just to see how the 3D effects look. It is the mystique behind how realistic the effects are that is such a great marketing tool. A friend sees the movie and says 'you HAVE to see this in 3D' and it becomes less about the plot, and more about the effects driving them to purchase a ticket.
  - wahnfrieden 16y ago
    I don't think so -- I saw it only because I was curious how the 3D effects were. I would not have seen it if it were only available in 2D. Same goes for the people I was with and many I've talked to. You can't show the 3D in marketing, but you can (and they did) highlight the concept of it. It's like all those ads on TV about fancy TV screens with superior image quality -- they obviously don't show you the screen itself.
- SapphireSun 16y ago
  I saw Avatar in 2D and loved it. Just adding another data point.

dedward 16y ago

I've had this discussion with many people. I enjoyed the movie for it's technical merits, not the plot. I saw both versions. I don't get hte "3d headache" - but I definitely enjoyed the 2d version more. THere was more detail to focus on, and in tha tmovie, detail was everything. With the 3d version, I found myself trying to look at things in the foreground/background, and I just couldn't - not becuuse of any defect in my ability to manipulate my eyes, but because (I think...) they actually used differnet depth of field settings when rendering the 2 versions.. there were things in the 3d version you literally COULDNT focus on - they wanted your eyes on the action only. That buged me. - I remember playing 3d Quake (the original) on my crappy home monitor, with LCD shutter glasses - and it was AWESOME FUN. SCARY. So I think all the points in the article are valid, 3d is hard, for more reasons than joe average might know, I certainly learned some stuff - but it's definitely a aprt of the future, if only because our current equipment makes it technically easy to play back.