Fair enough, 3D's cool, but I'm not too bothered by it. In most films, they use it alot in the beginning, and less and less as the film progresses. Weird.
Dark Knight Director Doesn't Like 3D
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Nolan, you rock hard. Hard.
I mean, it's alright in some movies, where it serves the immersiveness and was built in with the movie from the start. But it's usually pretty stupid. Nolan has a lot of integrity and vision, and he knows how to use it well, apparently.
I mean, it's alright in some movies, where it serves the immersiveness and was built in with the movie from the start. But it's usually pretty stupid. Nolan has a lot of integrity and vision, and he knows how to use it well, apparently.
I think 3D is a nifty effect and all, but every time I see a movie in 3D I walk out of the theater with a massive headache. That and the ridiculously large glasses get uncomfortable after a while.
Is it wrong that while reading this all I wanted to know was what movie was the inset pic from?
-M
-M
Excellent. Christopher Nolan is a great director, and it's good to see him bucking the trend. I think people are likely to listen to his opinion on the subject, seeing as this is the guy who managed to make a superhero blockbuster one of the most engaging and critically acclaimed films of 2008.
It's also nice to see someone criticising 3D for technical reasons (read any interview with him; he really knows his stuff), rather than based on cost of tickets or personal preference. Seeing as this is objective information he's offering here rather than opinion, I hope people will pay attention to it.
Bottom line: 3D is an expensive, unnecessarily complicated gimmick that needs to be used a lot less. It can certainly add to the flim if it is designed from the ground up for it, like Avatar, but converting films to the format after the fact is just a blatant money grab that adds little or nothing to the experience.
It's also nice to see someone criticising 3D for technical reasons (read any interview with him; he really knows his stuff), rather than based on cost of tickets or personal preference. Seeing as this is objective information he's offering here rather than opinion, I hope people will pay attention to it.
Bottom line: 3D is an expensive, unnecessarily complicated gimmick that needs to be used a lot less. It can certainly add to the flim if it is designed from the ground up for it, like Avatar, but converting films to the format after the fact is just a blatant money grab that adds little or nothing to the experience.
It's from The Prestige, aka Batman vs. Wolverine.midnightalone said:
Good thing too. 3D movies are mostly a disappointment, come on name three really good movies that were made in 3D.
Thank Christ. They are over priced, irritating having to bring or buy new glasses and add very little to the overall effect
It's just some corporate gimmick to make extra money from idiots and suckers
It's just some corporate gimmick to make extra money from idiots and suckers
ThisIrridium said:
I despise 3D. It's annoying. It takes the cinema away from cinema. In other words idiot consumers go to see a crap film purely to see shit flying out of the screen at them. I'd rather go watch a good film in 2D. I saw Avatar in 2D and it was great, immersive and imaginative. I then watched it in 3D and was just waiting for shit to pop out at me to justify me spending extra and by the end of it I was just thinking "oooooowwww! My eeeeeyeeesss!!"