[ ] you know jordayneCoronadoSEAL wrote:
so you're the type who just goes along with everything, or are you the type that gets all into the latest fads just so you can brag to your groupie friends that you knew about it before it was famous?jord wrote:
No, adapt its the future.
I'm glad batman 3 isn't going to be in 3D.
This weekend I am going to go see the 2d version of piranhas 3d, just to protest this fad.
[X] i'm smart enough to know it's not "the future"ig wrote:
[ ] you know jordayneCoronadoSEAL wrote:
so you're the type who just goes along with everything, or are you the type that gets all into the latest fads just so you can brag to your groupie friends that you knew about it before it was famous?jord wrote:
No, adapt its the future.
[ ] upper case x
Neither, I'm the type that barely cares enough to get into an argument with someone who speculates about the mindset of someone he doesn't know.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
so you're the type who just goes along with everything, or are you the type that gets all into the latest fads just so you can brag to your groupie friends that you knew about it before it was famous?jord wrote:
No, adapt its the future.
The films that come out in 3d all have 2d counterparts, I don't see what the problem is.
Thisghettoperson wrote:
The movie industry is doing their best to make it the norm in ~30 days.KuSTaV wrote:
Havent seen a 3d movie.
Probably wont unless it becomes the norm in ~30 years.
Almost every movie I see has the annoying "IN 3D" information at the end. I like normal movies, I don't want depth in a movie, I feel like I'm watching it from a window, I like screens.
I also don't want to pay extra to wear uncomfortable glasses. Especially since I already wear glasses, it's a pain to put the others on top.
Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2010-08-21 09:41:26)
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I for one, think 3D generates more fail than win...
Sure it's nice and all, but causes moviemakers to focus too much on gimmicks than the movie itself...
(Coming from a guy who's never actually seen a 3D movie since lego-land as a kid..)
Sure it's nice and all, but causes moviemakers to focus too much on gimmicks than the movie itself...
(Coming from a guy who's never actually seen a 3D movie since lego-land as a kid..)
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Because the movies were designed to be viewed in 3D. So the action scenes, dialogue, etc. were scripted to fit the 3D and not scripted to be viewed without 3D.jord wrote:
The films that come out in 3d all have 2d counterparts, I don't see what the problem is.
If you struggle to sit down, watch a film and wear some glasses for a few hours then you're going to have a tough time in the military.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Thisghettoperson wrote:
The movie industry is doing their best to make it the norm in ~30 days.KuSTaV wrote:
Havent seen a 3d movie.
Probably wont unless it becomes the norm in ~30 years.
Almost every movie I see has the annoying "IN 3D" information at the end. I like normal movies, I don't want depth in a movie, I feel like I'm watching it from a window, I like screens.
I also don't want to pay extra to wear uncomfortable glasses. Especially since I already wear glasses, it's a pain to put the others on top.
I don't mind the glasses, and no I don't normally wear glasses.
Jord that's the problem, people who don't use glasses on a day-to-day basis can wear 3D goggles just fine.. but when we put them over our normal glasses chances are they don't fit / annoy the fuck out of us...jord wrote:
If you struggle to sit down, watch a film and wear some glasses for a few hours then you're going to have a tough time in the military.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Thisghettoperson wrote:
The movie industry is doing their best to make it the norm in ~30 days.
Almost every movie I see has the annoying "IN 3D" information at the end. I like normal movies, I don't want depth in a movie, I feel like I'm watching it from a window, I like screens.
I also don't want to pay extra to wear uncomfortable glasses. Especially since I already wear glasses, it's a pain to put the others on top.
I don't mind the glasses, and no I don't normally wear glasses.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
And yet dvd sales of avatar made millions.Macbeth wrote:
Because the movies were designed to be viewed in 3D. So the action scenes, dialogue, etc. were scripted to fit the 3D and not scripted to be viewed without 3D.jord wrote:
The films that come out in 3d all have 2d counterparts, I don't see what the problem is.
That's all there is to it. 3d makes a lot of money, films are made to make money. Piranha 3d or resident evil 3d would be just as sub mediocre in 2d.
lasik surgery
AstigmatismSEREMAKER wrote:
lasik surgery
+
I'm not letting anyone burn away parts of my retina... Especially when the long term side effects are not yet proven/disproven
EDIT:
@ whoever karma'd me + everyone else:
I'm putting my money on in-screen 3D (Like some prototype layered OLED/LCD/TFT have already proven possible)...
Untill the need for glasses is removed 3D won't be liked/watched/interesting imo
Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-08-21 09:54:07)
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Astigmatism means that your cornea is not perfectly spherical and thus light entering your eye at different angles focuses on different points, right? So can't they use a laser to cut off part of your cornea to reshape it?
Random thought venturing off topic ...
Random thought venturing off topic ...
awm off topicliquidat0r wrote:
Astigmatism means that your cornea is not perfectly spherical and thus light entering your eye at different angles focuses on different points, right? So can't they use a laser to cut off part of your cornea to reshape it?
Random thought venturing off topic ...
liquidat0r wrote:
Astigmatism means that your cornea is not perfectly spherical and thus light entering your eye at different angles focuses on different points, right? So can't they use a laser to cut off part of your cornea to reshape it?
Random thought venturing off topic ...
FloppY_ wrote:
I'm not letting anyone burn away parts of my retina... Especially when the long term side effects are not yet proven/disproven
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Fair enough, I was just wondering about the science really.
Avatar certainly didn't need to be in 3D, and you're not missing out on much if you haven't seen it in 3D.
I think people will be more into 3D once they discover a way to do it without glasses. For instance, similar to something that the guy with the Wii remote achieved.
Avatar certainly didn't need to be in 3D, and you're not missing out on much if you haven't seen it in 3D.
I think people will be more into 3D once they discover a way to do it without glasses. For instance, similar to something that the guy with the Wii remote achieved.
liquidat0r wrote:
Fair enough, I was just wondering about the science really.
Avatar certainly didn't need to be in 3D, and you're not missing out on much if you haven't seen it in 3D.
I think people will be more into 3D once they discover a way to do it without glasses. For instance, similar to something that the guy with the Wii remote achieved.
FloppY_ wrote:
I'm putting my money on in-screen 3D (Like some prototype layered OLED/LCD/TFT have already proven possible)...
Untill the need for glasses is removed 3D won't be liked/watched/interesting imo
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Yes, I saw that you posted that. That's pretty much entirely why I wrote what I did.
sry :<liquidat0r wrote:
Yes, I saw that you posted that. That's pretty much entirely why I wrote what I did.
I'm bored
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
adds nothing to the movie, really obnoxious gimmick in all uses.
jord wrote:
It doesn't matter how many dimensions resident evil will be in it will still suck anus.
I've found 3D can add a lot to a movie or be distracting in a movie, it all depends on how its used and when. Mostly I'm for it though, when it's used properly it adds amazing depth to a movie that 2D just cant show.
All theses "only shitty movies are in 3D" arguments are stupid. You do realize that 2 years ago the movie still would have been shitty if it was in 2D, right? And its still shitty in 2D or 3D. Thats a criticism of the movie itself, not 3D. When its used in that way (for shitty movies its pretty well always post production 3D) I dont like it either. 3D for me, at the bare minimum, needs to be filmed in 3D, not post production 3D.
All theses "only shitty movies are in 3D" arguments are stupid. You do realize that 2 years ago the movie still would have been shitty if it was in 2D, right? And its still shitty in 2D or 3D. Thats a criticism of the movie itself, not 3D. When its used in that way (for shitty movies its pretty well always post production 3D) I dont like it either. 3D for me, at the bare minimum, needs to be filmed in 3D, not post production 3D.
This is true.Winston_Churchill wrote:
I've found 3D can add a lot to a movie or be distracting in a movie, it all depends on how its used and when. Mostly I'm for it though, when it's used properly it adds amazing depth to a movie that 2D just cant show.
All theses "only shitty movies are in 3D" arguments are stupid. You do realize that 2 years ago the movie still would have been shitty if it was in 2D, right? And its still shitty in 2D or 3D. Thats a criticism of the movie itself, not 3D. When its used in that way (for shitty movies its pretty well always post production 3D) I dont like it either. 3D for me, at the bare minimum, needs to be filmed in 3D, not post production 3D.
Some films I've liked it in. There are others where it's shit.
I think the big difference is that it's easy to make work well for animated films, but not so well for live action ones.