http://alexf0x.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] alexf0x.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] lupestripe 2010-07-09 10:58 am (UTC)

but every film in 3D is only going to take the gloss off the whole concept.

To right this is the killing factor for me as that while films that have been shot intentionally in stereo 3D use it to it's best effect, there are too many at the moment that have just had 3D shoehorned in post production.

The result is just weak FX that won't convince anyone that the concept is good, then there are just genes that wouldn't be good for it at all. I mean when did you see the needed FX shots in a rom com, or a tense drama like "Frost/Nickson"? You don't so 3D as a gimmick isn't needed.

Also another gripe I have with 3D movies, even if they are done well is all of the "forced" shots done by the director to show off the 3D effects. Even in avatar we where treated to lots of silly shots through windows, or behind glass, or through a chain linked fence, or a close up on a flying bullet, done just purposely to show off a 3D effect. It's daft and stupid, and look's terrible when translated back to 2D.

If 3D is to be accepted more than it has to be used a lot better than it is now, with no shoehorning or forced crap.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting