Latest Entertainment News Headlines

Christopher Nolan says that he's never met anyone who likes 3D

07.18.2012

The majority of us agree that 3D is not for us. It makes ticket prices for films go up and adds no extra value to the feature itself if it's thrown in like post-conversion. If anything, it's simply a money making gimmick from the 50s that somehow seeped its way back into the cinematic experience. Not every filmmaker out there believes that it is necessary to use the effect. One of those directors is Christopher Nolan.

Nolan never wanted to give THE DARK KNIGHT RISES or his previous two Batman films the 3D effect, “The question of 3-D is a very straightforward one. I never meet anybody who actually likes the format, and it’s always a source of great concern to me when you’re charging a higher price for something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for." He continued, “It’s up to the audience to tell us how they want to watch the movies. More people go see these films in 2-D, and so it’s difficult data to interpret. And I certainly don’t want to shoot in a format just to charge people a higher ticket price.”

Of course, you have the option of whether you want to see a film in 3D or not. If it adds something to the film it might not be so bad. This might be the case with Baz Luhrmann's THE GREAT GATSBY in 3D. Nolan recently saw some footage from the film and thinks that it might be one that he sees in 3D because, "it looks like a wild trip where “you’re going to be inside Baz’s head.” While it might have been right for Baz, it just wasn't right for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, “I’m fascinated to see what he’s going to do, but I don’t want any filmmaker to be pushed into doing something they don’t want to. 3-D did not feel like the right thing for this movie.”

Now, Nolan isn't completely against shooting in 3D. He's open to possibly doing it one day as long as it enhances the story.

What's your opinion on the use of 3D?

CLICK IMAGE TO OPEN GALLERY & SEE MORE PICS...

Extra Tidbit: Nolan considered converting INCEPTION to 3D, but decided against it because there was not enough time to do a quality conversion.
Source: Salon

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

7:05PM on 07/19/2012
To all the people giving thumbs down to any comment that's Green... can I ask one simple question? Other then Avatar & Prometheus, movies I actually thought used the 3-D properly and were visually stunning. Other then those... what example of 3-D are you defending? Everything else I've seen has been post-converted and was unnecessary and ridiculously stupid looking. You were stoned if you went to Beowolf, Harry Potter, or even The Avengers... and thought the 3-D was awe-inspiring or necessary.
To all the people giving thumbs down to any comment that's Green... can I ask one simple question? Other then Avatar & Prometheus, movies I actually thought used the 3-D properly and were visually stunning. Other then those... what example of 3-D are you defending? Everything else I've seen has been post-converted and was unnecessary and ridiculously stupid looking. You were stoned if you went to Beowolf, Harry Potter, or even The Avengers... and thought the 3-D was awe-inspiring or necessary.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:41PM on 07/19/2012
i didnt vote any comments down but ill answer anyway.

My movie experience might be different since i dont go to the theaters anymore since my TV does everything except IMAX.

ill answer with an example

But Hugo's (opening scene, perfect 3d effects), Underworld 3 ( chain whip), Darkest Night ( Death scenes of aliens disolving ppl), John Carter ( All CGI effects). Amazing Spider-man (i havent seen it yet aka not on DVD, but the 3d trailer looks decent)

Again this is all from my 55'
i didnt vote any comments down but ill answer anyway.

My movie experience might be different since i dont go to the theaters anymore since my TV does everything except IMAX.

ill answer with an example

But Hugo's (opening scene, perfect 3d effects), Underworld 3 ( chain whip), Darkest Night ( Death scenes of aliens disolving ppl), John Carter ( All CGI effects). Amazing Spider-man (i havent seen it yet aka not on DVD, but the 3d trailer looks decent)

Again this is all from my 55' active TV (not movie theater passive tech)

I defend 3D, cause on a smaller more personalized screen it looks really good. The films quality is higher on the smaller 55' compared to a movie screen. 3D along with eye poping effects, adds depth to scenes which immerses me more into the movie environment.

Also, having first hand knowledge of what a good 3D TV can produce, i hope more ppl get to experience the personal home 3D theater so they can see the big difference between a movie theater 3d experience and home 3d movie experience.

3D is the future of TV entertainment. That technology has to potential to take TV/Movie Innovation to a whole new level.

Change comes slow. Its not an overnight thing. They arent going to master 3D overnight. It takes time and the best way to improve 3d is through application.

4:56PM on 07/19/2012
I'd totally agree with him. I have yet to see a 3D movie that was good (concerning the 3D that is; not the movie itself). I've actually been left wondering if it was just me having bad depth perception or something. To be fair, I've avoided 3D like the plague for the last year too. Still, I just don't see the point in it and have yet to see where it's helped anything. I think the point where I turned totally against 3D was when watching an interview with James Cameron and some other director
I'd totally agree with him. I have yet to see a 3D movie that was good (concerning the 3D that is; not the movie itself). I've actually been left wondering if it was just me having bad depth perception or something. To be fair, I've avoided 3D like the plague for the last year too. Still, I just don't see the point in it and have yet to see where it's helped anything. I think the point where I turned totally against 3D was when watching an interview with James Cameron and some other director (from that movie about Caves in 3D) and they were saying how the best 3D is the 3D you don't notice. So I have to wonder what the point is if we're not supposed to notice it..... obviously inflated ticket prices.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+8
2:34PM on 07/19/2012
Great for some movies, unnecessary or even bad for others.
Great for some movies, unnecessary or even bad for others.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:05PM on 07/19/2012

"Meaningful 3D is more than seeing things flying at the camera."

"Meaningful 3D is more than seeing things flying at the camera."
EXACTLY!!!!!!

PPL think they are going to see this 3D movie and are expecting hologram 3D

When i watch 3D its not about things flying off the screen.

Its about giving the scenes more depths and unique point of view that we are given that adds a more engaging movie experience.

which ppl miss because they expect some kind of star wars hologram technology....

With the tech thats available: 3D home entertainment is the
"Meaningful 3D is more than seeing things flying at the camera."
EXACTLY!!!!!!

PPL think they are going to see this 3D movie and are expecting hologram 3D

When i watch 3D its not about things flying off the screen.

Its about giving the scenes more depths and unique point of view that we are given that adds a more engaging movie experience.

which ppl miss because they expect some kind of star wars hologram technology....

With the tech thats available: 3D home entertainment is the best home movie experience we can get....

Yes IMAX is out, but how many ppl got an IMAX TV? (dont think they are made)

3D is the future of MOVIE TECHNOLOGY

When pictures first came out in Black in White, imagine if it failed cause it wasnt in color.

Give it time. Support the Industry u Love. They are already making the Non-Glass 3d Tech. Who knows the Movie tech that will spawn from non-glass 3d tech once its mainstreamed. But for that to happen, 3d Tech needs support.

But without Current support for 3D we can only have so many advancments in PICTURE HD QUALITY

Soon, the old need to step from their old ways and accept technology and try to better it
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+5
1:45PM on 07/19/2012

not all 3D is equal and not all conversion is crap

No offence, but Nolan is talking out of his arse. And when do you think the last time he sat in a conventional theater with regular film goers and watched anything was? In the 80's, I'd expect. making a statement like that as though the opinions of his rich pals matters much is probably best taken with a tablespoon of sea salt.

For sure, there's lots of crap 3D practices happening on set and within post conversion, as well as crappy 3D projecting systems in theaters, and overall a real lack
No offence, but Nolan is talking out of his arse. And when do you think the last time he sat in a conventional theater with regular film goers and watched anything was? In the 80's, I'd expect. making a statement like that as though the opinions of his rich pals matters much is probably best taken with a tablespoon of sea salt.

For sure, there's lots of crap 3D practices happening on set and within post conversion, as well as crappy 3D projecting systems in theaters, and overall a real lack of quality standards to ensure users get consistent experiences.

However as noted in some of the comments, there are also some great examples of the potential for 3D to enhance the experience of the form, and those examples were both from native and from post conversions. To offhandedly dismiss either shows a real lack of understanding for the potential, as well as demonstrate the danger of not establishing better quality bars for audiences to ensure that when they pay for a 3D experience, the actually get a good and worthwhile one.

Ticket prices in theaters are through the roof, period, like the $5 popcorn and the $30 combo "meal". Any sort of perceived innovation will afford theaters a chance to hike prices. Like the new trend of assigned seating and getting licensed to sell $8 beers in Canada, as though seeing a flick is on par with catching a stadium hockey game.

Done well, 3D should be considered from the inception of the project with careful consideration of shot flow from shot to shot to maximize impact and flow while minimizing the jarring jumps of foreground and background depth changes that cause uncomfortable optical tension (and headaches), like the sorts Avatar was full of. Left eye and right eye have to be considered through the process of film making, even if the film is planned for post conversion since shooting native is cost prohibitive for most and error prone requiring clean up in post as did Spider-Man and Prometheus. Focal depth, ease in and out for transitions to mitigate snap changes that break viewer immersion, considerations for how far apart to set the left and right eyes, and to what amount of width of view each eye or shot will have to best serve story without causing eye strain from overly panoramic ambitions.

Meaningful 3D is more than seeing things flying at the camera. It is about giving filmmakers a broader pallet of choices for storytelling, tools to better separate foregrounds from backgrounds, to draw an audience in and help them to visually breath with the scenes and settings. Not all films with 3D warrant attention or affection. Just the ones that considered the impact of having two eyes in a scene and how they're relating those views to the audience in a way that helps empower and enhance the experience for the audience.

And about that Inception conversion bid. It wasn't time that killed it. It was cost. Conversion isn't cheap, and good conversion costs a lot. theaters have little reservation about showing a film that's been enhanced if the film is already an establish block buster. The issue is having to convert the entire film for both eyes at that length with that amount of effects and detail. and you don't want a semi-automated "puffed" conversion when the film frames have that much detail, just won't work, too much noise. Not that "puffed" 3D ever looks great anyway.

3D or not to 3D warrants bigger discussion that simply agreeing with some smug offhand comment made by a big budget superhero movie. Also, the comment came from the Director, not the DOP or Production Designer or Cinematographer, any of which would be better qualified to have an opinion on the logistics and merit of using 3D for enhancing the craftsmanship of the film over Mr. Nolan.

I look forward to the new Dark Night. Not rabid about it though, as I've seen the last two, and seen how there is a lot on screen that seems to be there because the budget afforded it, rather than because the story or characterizations warranted it. Sort of like Bad Boys 2. Hopefully this installment is better, less sprawling, disjointed, and more cohesive as a whole.

e
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
11:41AM on 07/19/2012

"And I certainly donít want to shoot in a format just to charge people a higher ticket price"

Now everyone...go and see this film I shot with IMAX cameras at the IMAX!
Now everyone...go and see this film I shot with IMAX cameras at the IMAX!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:21AM on 07/19/2012

Let the thumbs down begin for my previous post.

haha.
haha.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:51AM on 07/19/2012

Nolan is a douche

Im sorry, he makes good movies (although ever since his run on Begins, he thinks he can have these bloated films that dont deserve to be cut down), but he has a very douchey way about himself. Like how he defended his fans from bashing critics for not liking a movie, or making grand general statements like this. Get off your high horse.
Im sorry, he makes good movies (although ever since his run on Begins, he thinks he can have these bloated films that dont deserve to be cut down), but he has a very douchey way about himself. Like how he defended his fans from bashing critics for not liking a movie, or making grand general statements like this. Get off your high horse.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:30AM on 07/19/2012

TRY WATCHING A HOME 3D TV

The difference between a Blu-ray and 3d Blu-ray is usually $5 (release week)
also 3d Gaming is amazing like Batman Arkham city and Uncharted 3

i love my active 3d TV
The difference between a Blu-ray and 3d Blu-ray is usually $5 (release week)
also 3d Gaming is amazing like Batman Arkham city and Uncharted 3

i love my active 3d TV
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:28AM on 07/19/2012

TRY WATCHING A HOME 3D TV

Much different experience from a theater (passive 3D technology) to an Active 3D TV.
My Sony Active 3D is amazing. I hated 3D in the Theaters.

But a Private 55 inch 3d screen is SOOOO much different from the Passive 3D TVs
Most ppl cant afford them cause of the high cost, but if more ppl had PRIVATE 3D HOME TVs i think 3D would be more popular.

Also i dont see 3D in Theaters, i wait and Buy DVD and Watch at home!
Much different experience from a theater (passive 3D technology) to an Active 3D TV.
My Sony Active 3D is amazing. I hated 3D in the Theaters.

But a Private 55 inch 3d screen is SOOOO much different from the Passive 3D TVs
Most ppl cant afford them cause of the high cost, but if more ppl had PRIVATE 3D HOME TVs i think 3D would be more popular.

Also i dont see 3D in Theaters, i wait and Buy DVD and Watch at home!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:29AM on 07/19/2012
On my Active TV i can tell when its Converted to 3d and when it was made in 3d

But some Converted 3d is done real well

My friend hated 3d, till he came over and watch some movies and games
On my Active TV i can tell when its Converted to 3d and when it was made in 3d

But some Converted 3d is done real well

My friend hated 3d, till he came over and watch some movies and games
10:24AM on 07/19/2012
Not sure if I agree with him.
Not sure if I agree with him.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:58AM on 07/19/2012

3D = Headache

The only good part about 3D.. Katy Perry's Clevage
The only good part about 3D.. Katy Perry's Clevage
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:57AM on 07/19/2012

3D = Headache

The only good part about 3D.. Katy Perry's Clevage
The only good part about 3D.. Katy Perry's Clevage
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:30AM on 07/19/2012
3D is BS. I have a tendency to keep lifting my glasses to see if a scene is in 3D or not during 3D films and I can't believe the amount of a film is actually normal. They only use the extra dimension for key moments. Unless its filmed in 3D then I don't want to know about it. The only one I've seen filmed in 3D was Avatar and that was great but as for these post converted crapfests.... I'm done it's now 2D all the way.
3D is BS. I have a tendency to keep lifting my glasses to see if a scene is in 3D or not during 3D films and I can't believe the amount of a film is actually normal. They only use the extra dimension for key moments. Unless its filmed in 3D then I don't want to know about it. The only one I've seen filmed in 3D was Avatar and that was great but as for these post converted crapfests.... I'm done it's now 2D all the way.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:04AM on 07/19/2012

Agreed

I don't like 3D.....Period. ESPECIALLY POST CONVERSION! I cannot wait til it all goes away.
I don't like 3D.....Period. ESPECIALLY POST CONVERSION! I cannot wait til it all goes away.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:45AM on 07/19/2012
The myth about the reason for 3D films is that it adds immersion to the experience which, frankly, I find to be nonsense. 3D cinema tech is a distraction - an extra layer of separation from getting immersed in the story. The glasses and crap flying toward you bears no relation to a more "real" experience. We've evolved to be able to lose ourselves in watching a 2D film, but these added effects and layers do not improve upon that experience.
Then there's the basics about the way the human eye
The myth about the reason for 3D films is that it adds immersion to the experience which, frankly, I find to be nonsense. 3D cinema tech is a distraction - an extra layer of separation from getting immersed in the story. The glasses and crap flying toward you bears no relation to a more "real" experience. We've evolved to be able to lose ourselves in watching a 2D film, but these added effects and layers do not improve upon that experience.
Then there's the basics about the way the human eye actually works - read this article from Ebert's blog if you haven't already: [link]
3D can be a fun gimmick, but that's all it'll ever be, and shouldn't be forced on us as the main cinematic option.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
8:22AM on 07/19/2012

Even though what he said is nothing new, I agree with him... kinda

First of all, I don't care that much about ticket prices, sure it could be a little less but my cinema has a good Tuesday offer and most of them do so it's not my main problem with the format.

And there are two major ones. First of all the darkness of the picture. I read someone naming a couple of movies they liked in 3D but I can't imagine anyone seriously liking the 3D in movies such as Avengers or Thor or even Tron: Legacy. Listen, I loved Avengers and I really dug Tron, but the night
First of all, I don't care that much about ticket prices, sure it could be a little less but my cinema has a good Tuesday offer and most of them do so it's not my main problem with the format.

And there are two major ones. First of all the darkness of the picture. I read someone naming a couple of movies they liked in 3D but I can't imagine anyone seriously liking the 3D in movies such as Avengers or Thor or even Tron: Legacy. Listen, I loved Avengers and I really dug Tron, but the night scenes are really hard to decipher, the extra dimension is never visable in those scenes and it just makes an otherwise clear picture look worse. I am 100% sure that Avengers having their climax at day time was a conscious effort made by the filmmakers in respect to the 3D. If it was at night, the scenes would not be as visable, hence a little annoying and the conclusion unsatisfying. The same goes for Transformers 3, which to be objective did have the best 3D since Avatar, but how did that movie turned out to be? 3D sure as hell didn't help it.

The second thing is the lack of choice for moviegoers. Now, more and more often we are left with no choice to choose between 2D and 3D, which might be a financial decision made by multiplexes or it could be the producers shoving 3D down our throughts, trying to skew the numbers in 3D's favour. (There is also the 3D glasses problem for people who wear regular glasses, but since I don't then I'll skip it).

Now I said I kinda agree with Nolan because obviously there are people who like it (I do believe him he never met such a person, because people tend to lie in front of a successfull figure such as Nolan). Because it can be done right, like Avatar, but that movie was basically based around that technology, the movie basically served the format instead the other way around. I think the same could be said for Hugo. Meanwhile good movies independently of the format become worse due to post-conversion or even unflattering night setpieces shot in 3D. I haven't sen Prometheus yet, it comes out this Friday over here, and I don't know how that movie, which is in dark, space setting, has fared. But the problem still lies in the technology alone and not the financial aspect.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
6:07AM on 07/19/2012
I agree, although I wouldn't say 'like' is the right word. I've never heard anyone who outright doesn't like it. I've heard people say that they didn't like particular films done in 3D, usually post converted stuff, but they have also enjoyed other films in 3D. I myself, while disliking the format, have seen the occasional 3D film I've enjoyed (Avatar, My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination 5). Occasionally it adds to the film, but rarely for me. I am glad Nolan isn't doing 3D though. If he had
I agree, although I wouldn't say 'like' is the right word. I've never heard anyone who outright doesn't like it. I've heard people say that they didn't like particular films done in 3D, usually post converted stuff, but they have also enjoyed other films in 3D. I myself, while disliking the format, have seen the occasional 3D film I've enjoyed (Avatar, My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination 5). Occasionally it adds to the film, but rarely for me. I am glad Nolan isn't doing 3D though. If he had done it for a film like DKR, I think it would have stripped some focus from the film. IMAX is good enough for this movie.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:19AM on 07/19/2012
I definitely agree. When we were at the midnight screening of Avengers (in 2D) the theater manager was asking people if they wanted a free upgrade to the 3D showing because the 2D showings were all sold out. I personally don't mind theaters giving people who like it the option of 3D but when they don't give the 2D option they are actually losing business. Sure they make more per ticket but sell much less tickets.
I definitely agree. When we were at the midnight screening of Avengers (in 2D) the theater manager was asking people if they wanted a free upgrade to the 3D showing because the 2D showings were all sold out. I personally don't mind theaters giving people who like it the option of 3D but when they don't give the 2D option they are actually losing business. Sure they make more per ticket but sell much less tickets.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:18AM on 07/19/2012
I think the only two movies I ever saw with 3D effects that made me go "woah." were Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon. Besides those two, I usually forget after about 20 min that I'm seeing the movie in 3D (besides 2 or 3 key moments). In general, I much prefer seeing a movie in 2D, though I kinda regret seeing Hugo in 2D now that I've read all your comments...
I think the only two movies I ever saw with 3D effects that made me go "woah." were Avatar and How To Train Your Dragon. Besides those two, I usually forget after about 20 min that I'm seeing the movie in 3D (besides 2 or 3 key moments). In general, I much prefer seeing a movie in 2D, though I kinda regret seeing Hugo in 2D now that I've read all your comments...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:45AM on 07/19/2012
I respect his opinions but I still like 3D when its done right. Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus are the best Live action movies made. Avatar set the bar too high and conversions have cheapened the format.
I also enjoy 3D animation, UP, Megamind and How to train your dragon were quality 3D movies.
I respect his opinions but I still like 3D when its done right. Avatar, Hugo, Prometheus are the best Live action movies made. Avatar set the bar too high and conversions have cheapened the format.
I also enjoy 3D animation, UP, Megamind and How to train your dragon were quality 3D movies.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:12AM on 07/19/2012
Hell yes, finally someone in the industry says it. Glad it's someone so admired.
Hell yes, finally someone in the industry says it. Glad it's someone so admired.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:38AM on 07/19/2012
Hear hear, Mr. Nolan. I don't like 3D either - gives me gigantic headache.
Hear hear, Mr. Nolan. I don't like 3D either - gives me gigantic headache.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:55AM on 07/19/2012
Ive seen 2 movies in 3D so its very rare for me
Ive seen 2 movies in 3D so its very rare for me
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:25AM on 07/19/2012

hugo

He has a point. 99.9% of the time it is useless...but...then there are films like Hugo that use it right.


Still the best 3D I ever saw. It enhanced the story telling... it made the film more deep. I love that movie so much... I same to be an outcast though.


He has a point. 99.9% of the time it is useless...but...then there are films like Hugo that use it right.


Still the best 3D I ever saw. It enhanced the story telling... it made the film more deep. I love that movie so much... I same to be an outcast though.


Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
12:23AM on 07/19/2012

For me...

The best film i have seen in 3D has been Hugo, aside from that film i don't like the 3D experience at all. Even Hugo would have been just as wonderful without the depth, because the story was wonderful. For me, theres no better wow factor then seeing a film in IMAX format, with incredible visual, sound affects. I hope Nolan continues to push IMAX, and other directors want their films shot in IMAX film.
The best film i have seen in 3D has been Hugo, aside from that film i don't like the 3D experience at all. Even Hugo would have been just as wonderful without the depth, because the story was wonderful. For me, theres no better wow factor then seeing a film in IMAX format, with incredible visual, sound affects. I hope Nolan continues to push IMAX, and other directors want their films shot in IMAX film.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
12:12AM on 07/19/2012

3D: technology vs money/politics

I take issue with people whose primary complaint about 3D movies are the inflated price or lack of 2D sessions. It's not the movie you have a problem with, it's the people - cinema owners who jack up the prices and taking away your options, it's the marketing department that is slapping "IN 3D!" everywhere. Even the technical issues like darkness, ghosting, "I'm too cool for glasses" or eye strain are just that, tech issues - they can all be overcome with maturing tech. The 3D debate should be
I take issue with people whose primary complaint about 3D movies are the inflated price or lack of 2D sessions. It's not the movie you have a problem with, it's the people - cinema owners who jack up the prices and taking away your options, it's the marketing department that is slapping "IN 3D!" everywhere. Even the technical issues like darkness, ghosting, "I'm too cool for glasses" or eye strain are just that, tech issues - they can all be overcome with maturing tech. The 3D debate should be about the movie itself, do people want 3D depth to the picture in their film or not... Does it enhance the story? The money / politics / marketing of a 3D movie should be a separate conversation...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
11:58PM on 07/18/2012

Can't Stand 3D

Avatar was a great experience in 3D but would probably have been almost as good to watch in 2D. 3D films give both my wife and myself headaches. The last thing I need is to pay extra for something that gives me a migraine.
Higher frame rates for movies give better immersion into the story because they minimize motion blur. I'd pay extra to see films shot and projected at 48 fps.
Avatar was a great experience in 3D but would probably have been almost as good to watch in 2D. 3D films give both my wife and myself headaches. The last thing I need is to pay extra for something that gives me a migraine.
Higher frame rates for movies give better immersion into the story because they minimize motion blur. I'd pay extra to see films shot and projected at 48 fps.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:35PM on 07/18/2012

Amusement Parks

I like 3D best at attractions in amusement parks, like Terminator 2-3D or the new Star Tours ride. This takes full advantage of the format and you only have to deal with it for about 10-15 minutes. With movies, I feel maybe 20 minutes of a 2 hour movie might benefit from 3D, if that, so to me it isn't worth it and I catch the 2D shows.
I like 3D best at attractions in amusement parks, like Terminator 2-3D or the new Star Tours ride. This takes full advantage of the format and you only have to deal with it for about 10-15 minutes. With movies, I feel maybe 20 minutes of a 2 hour movie might benefit from 3D, if that, so to me it isn't worth it and I catch the 2D shows.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
11:01PM on 07/18/2012
I agree with Nolan, more recently, theaters kind of force you to see a movie in 3D by not offering enough showtimes in standard format or not offering any at all. Plus, it's been shown at theaters nationwide that 2D showtimes have a higher chance of being sold out--I think that should tell studios what people think of 3D. Most of the time it's just a cash grab anyway, it's not like it adds anything to the story, only the experience if actually shot with 3D cameras which Avatar was the only
I agree with Nolan, more recently, theaters kind of force you to see a movie in 3D by not offering enough showtimes in standard format or not offering any at all. Plus, it's been shown at theaters nationwide that 2D showtimes have a higher chance of being sold out--I think that should tell studios what people think of 3D. Most of the time it's just a cash grab anyway, it's not like it adds anything to the story, only the experience if actually shot with 3D cameras which Avatar was the only movie that it worked for.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:53PM on 07/18/2012

TRON: LEGACY

The only movie I ever saw that wowed me with it's 3D. Granted I saw it in IMAX 3D which was all around badass.
The only movie I ever saw that wowed me with it's 3D. Granted I saw it in IMAX 3D which was all around badass.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:28PM on 07/18/2012

Avatar, Avengers, Tin Tin, Piranha 3D all totally worth the ticket premium

as far as format preference goes, obviously imax is a much bigger difference-maker in-and-of itself, but not every theater can afford to install an imax theater...
as far as format preference goes, obviously imax is a much bigger difference-maker in-and-of itself, but not every theater can afford to install an imax theater...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:30PM on 07/18/2012
oh duh PROMETHEUS!
oh duh PROMETHEUS!
10:24PM on 07/18/2012
Besides some horror movies, I've never seen a movie in theaters that I thought :Wow, that's great 3D" or even "That was pretty good 3D." Nolan, you are all of my yes.
Besides some horror movies, I've never seen a movie in theaters that I thought :Wow, that's great 3D" or even "That was pretty good 3D." Nolan, you are all of my yes.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:19PM on 07/18/2012
3D is not a format I want at all. I hate it
3D is not a format I want at all. I hate it
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting

Movie Hottie Of The Week

More