" @JamesKond said:It really depends on your standards for being impressed. Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon are most definitely not the "only ones to have done it well." The first film I've seen that really did it correctly was Pixar's Up. Totally restrained, very subtly applied and that's why it worked. The same is true for Avatar, though I get the feeling that a lot of people miss the reason it worked so well there because it's the most out of control animated spectacle ever produced." I just saw my first 3D film and I'll tell you: Not impressed. "What movie? It really depends on the movie if you want to be impressed. By all accounts Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon are the only ones to have done it well so far. "
I'm curious what people who aren't impressed by subtle, convincing depth in movies are looking for from such films. When done well it looks better than the same film in 2D so what's not to like about it? At least when it comes to movies with their inexpensive, light-weight polarized lenses. I'm definitely not in the camp advocating active shutter. That shit is way too expensive and gives an unacceptably large portion of the population headaches.
And as a random side note on the future of 3D films, we might also finally get actresses who don't have to starve themselves to look thin on camera and the ones who already have might need to eat a cheeseburger and drink a few beers so as not to creep out the audience.
Log in to comment