SubJeff on 28/12/2010 at 23:51
3D is potentially fantastic.
Problem is you need an IMax cinema to make the most use of it because what you really want is to fill your entire field of vision with the screen. We fluked this with Avatar by being in the last 10 people to get into the IMax cinema and thus ended up being right at the front - which I initially thought was a big problem seeing as I get a headache/nauseated if I sit too close normally.
But being that close meant that when that first scene, where they are waking up from stasis, came on I felt I was there. And the rest of the experience was awesome because the 3D worked so damn well.
Saw Tron Legacy at a normal 3D cinema and I moved twice to try and get more out of the 3D (the theatre was almost empty).
It didn't work.
Phatose on 29/12/2010 at 00:59
Part of the problem with the 3d in Tron was that the visual design was entirely inappropriate for 3d in it's current state. The entire world was designed around hard contrasts between inky blackness and the trademark glow, which just does not work well with the current tech.
The 3d in the trailer for the movie about rescuing animals in Africa was far more impressive, simply because it was much better laid out for 3d. Bright visuals, very deep vistas with marked contrasts between foreground and background.
New Horizon on 29/12/2010 at 01:18
I honestly haven't sat through the entire first Tron movie yet. I remember arriving at school late one day in grade 2 and they were showing it to the students. It was probably the last 20 minutes. That's about all I've seen of it. I know the story and am quite familiar with the visuals, but it hasn't been burned into my mind with that childhood glow like so many others.
I went into Tron Legacy with no expectations. I was just going to see a movie.
The movie did a great job of setting everything up so even someone who never saw the original would know what was going on.
Anyway, I really loved it. It wasn't perfect, but it had some heart and it was fun. I agree that the 3d wasn't necessary, but it did add some depth for the most part.
Yup, I enjoyed it.
icemann on 29/12/2010 at 12:55
Bring back VR, in a less headache/eye strain causing fashion. Now that had some friggin potential.
Either that or I want one of those holodecks from Startrek.
DaBeast on 29/12/2010 at 22:05
Quote Posted by Queue
She could always wear sunglasses while you wing a glow-in-the-dark frisbee at her head.
I'm sorry, but 3D is the most retard gimmick since Smell-O-Vision. The only thing dumber would be 3D television.
I bet when they came up with the wheel you didnt think it would catch on...
Seriously though, thats smacks of hating it for the sake of it, or is it the idea that visuals will take over from deep, well thought out scripts/concepts or did it just not impress you? Its already too late for the former, since we get garbage all the time.
I thought Avatar was obvious and derivitive and all that, but visually it was fantastic, I couldn't imagine seeing it in 2D as being nearly as impressive, and having watched it like that recently, I feel I was right.
Even Jackass 33D was awesome, even if most of the 3d stuff in it was just for the sake of it.
As for Tron, I just got back from seeing it and, while I wasn't blown away by the use of 3D, it was still very stunning both visually and audio..ly. In fact the soundtrack I felt was very Mass Effect, which seems to be getting a little more popular now, at least they used similar sounding stuff in Stargate Universe.
Queue on 29/12/2010 at 22:29
Quote Posted by DaBeast
Seriously though, thats smacks of hating it for the sake of it, or is it the idea that visuals will take over from deep, well thought out scripts/concepts or did it just not impress you? Its already too late for the former, since we get garbage all the time.
3D has been around since the 50s. It was a poorly done gimmick then, and seems to remains so today. I remember, when I was a kid, rushing off to the local 7-11 to get my pair of red and blue glasses because
The Creature From The Black Lagoon was going to be shown in 3D on TV. Regardless of the novelty, it was still a shitty movie. The 3D didn't make it any better and gave me a headache to the point of barfing up my Slurpee.
3D films could be wonderful, but instead filmmakers are resorting to gimmicks contrived to "enhance the 3D experience", and provide cheap thrills, by presenting a 3D world where shit flies out of the screen at you. Don't find that particularly thrilling when we already live in a 3D world where shit can fly at you at anytime. Piss the wife off and see what happens, if you don't believe me.
Quote:
I thought Avatar was obvious and derivitive and all that, but visually it was fantastic, I couldn't imagine seeing it in 2D as being nearly as impressive, and having watched it like that recently, I feel I was right.
Then it's not a good movie. It's a pretty picture.
Quote:
Even Jackass 33D was awesome, even if most of the 3d stuff in it was just for the sake of it.
And you just stated the problem with 3D: it's done just for the sake of it. It was like watching the preview for the new Yogi Bear movie...I bet that turtle sure as hell is going to come flying out of the screen and whirl around over our heads. I could be wrong.
To me, it seems that the film industry is in a quandary. How to make a 3D film that uses the 3D well? Because, if you make a good movie, then there's no need for 3D. If you make a film to exploit 3D, there's no need to make a truly good film--all you had to do was entertain the audience and get them to go Ooooo at the appropriately contrived moments. But won't those moments get old after awhile? How many times can something whirl around over your head before you ask yourself, what's the point?
Avatar was the closet thing we've had to a movie that used 3D well, but, as you pointed out, without the 3D it wasn't impressive.
I don't hate the idea of 3D. I just hate what they are doing with it.
Xorak on 29/12/2010 at 22:47
I saw this last night. It felt like they spent almost the entire movie coming up with the backstory and justification of the movie rather than focusing on the plot of the new movie itself. When the movie started with lengthy exposition, I knew then it wasn't going to be as great as I was hoping. I've really yet to see a good movie that starts with drawn-out exposition. I mean, I wish they would just start the damn movie and fill in the cracks as they go. I hate that every new encounter between the characters first involved another round of backstory to listen to, most of which just engorges the plot and creates needles threads of information. I give it a 6.5/10.
I actually resorted to watching a fair portion of it without the 3D glasses. The 3D just doesn't do it for me either. I hate that the 3D forces the viewer to look at exactly what the director wants them to look at, while relegating everything else to unimportance. I want to look at what I want to look at, and be able to take in the whole picture. I like the magic of the cheap/corny sci-fi of the previous decades. To me, this movie had no magic at all.
Scots Taffer on 29/12/2010 at 23:22
Just to ill-advisedly wade into the debate here for a moment on Queue's side, I hate that people bring up Avatar talking about what 3D can do for cinema. I was visually impressed by Avatar but I've had zero inclination to watch it again and its lasting impact on cinema can be reduced down to there being more braindead trash being thrown through 3D post-processing and pumped into the multiplexes at inflated ticket prices, not producing a new wave of technologically amazing, interesting and satisfying motion pictures. (Hello Inception)
I've been struggling with myself about going to see Tron Legacy because every bone in my body anticipates a terribly-scripted, hammily-acted piece of shit but one that will make you weep at the beauty whilst being whisked away on a gorgeous soundtrack. I knew this walking into Avatar and felt somewhat dirty afterward. I'd basically help fund a 10 year technical sojourn for Cameron that wasn't going to do anything for cinema except produce an overhyped and overwrought sparkly blue turd.
SubJeff on 29/12/2010 at 23:36
Quote Posted by Queue
3D has been around since the 50s. It was a poorly done gimmick then, and seems to remains so today.
Nonsense.
It was very well done in Avatar. The movie failed at story, not visuals. At all. No matter how you rate the film overall if you saw it at a decent 3D place and didn't sit in a stupid place it looked amazing. I watched a fair portion of it in HD today although it still looks pretty in 2D it's nothing compared to the 3D iMax experience.
Sulphur on 29/12/2010 at 23:38
At the risk of being contrarian for the sake of it, I found Tron's soundtrack to contain too many generic sweeping string sections along with foreboding atonal horn blares a la Zimmer's work for Inception. It needed far more of that Punkish electronica (as in Derezzed). In the few places where those abrasive electronics are used as a textural counterpoint to the orchestra, it works so well it's a shame there's so little of it. Instead, we have all these short orchestral bits which seem to evoke a fair amount of deja vu.
