So more and more films are either being made and released as 3D, or re-made in 3D… Is this a necessary evil to keep the industry on its feet? Or are they just doing it because they can?
I’m guessing it is just another money-making scheme.
I honestly enjoy 2D films better than 3D with very few exceptions. VERY few exceptions. In fact, I will name them for you right now:
Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland and Coraline
I think both of these films benefit from 3D because they are animated, the genre is ‘fantasy’ and they are both set in ficticious lands. So the environment is more fantastical without pointless objects being thrown at you for no apparent reason.
Titanic – a step too far? I mean the fact that the sinking of the Titanic was an actual occurence where many died… So by making another, but in 3D, are the production companies simply taking advantage? Then again, thank God it’s not a sequal!!
Having said that, Titanic is a fantastic film that James Cameron did very well on. And it is essentially a love story that happened to be based during a tragic, historical happening…
I just don’t think 3D is needed for good films… (ie: Titanic) But, maybe that’s why. Bad films that would not sell originally, sell very well if they are in 3D. But, you’re paying more for it too. It’s like… $3 extra for watching a crap film that hurts your eyes while using glasses that dig into your face. It’s even worse if you wear prescription glasses.
It’s true. I am not a supporter of this fad. Man, I sure hope it is a fad. I can’t see it becoming a permanent way of watching films to be honest.
I don’t know anybody – who is not under 11 years-old – who actually prefers 3D so… Yeah… Film companies: make sure you keep the 3D films away from the PG rated films and over.
Cool thanks.
Jodie.
NZ Film Freak 
3D is for geeks.
Get rid of 3D, it’s really not advanced enough to be much fun, and those glasses you have to wear are a pain in the arse!
I know, right! Until they make a screen that plays 3D without glasses, I will avoid the 3D films for sure.
Thanks for your comment! :)
Connie.
3D can be cleverly done, if for the right reasons, say to bring depth to an image on the screen, but just for things flying at you – NO!! Its both pointless & gives me a headache!! But when you watch 3D on some films, say something like Avatar & those animated films you mentioned, then it brings the ‘worlds’ imagined to life making them feel more real, but then even in 2D those films are amazing cos they have great perspective & a level or creativity about them. I say if its right for the film then its ok, but just for cheap thrills or crappy remakes leave well alone!!
True! Plus, after the first three or so baseball bats, fists or hi-5s coming at you, you’re kind of over it. Gets exhausting!!
Thanks for your comments!
Connie.
I agree, I don’t think 3D is necessary for every movie – unless it’s something like Avatar for instance, where its obvious the tech and the SFX are the main points of the movie. I generally find it distracting. And right now, I cannot believe that I am currently searching out the non-3D screenings of the Avengers for the 25th.
Yes! I forgot about Avatar. That certainly did benefit from 3D. Even so, it was a very long movie – which felt even longer in 3D! :)
Thanks for your comments!
Connie.
I feel Titanic 3 D is purely a money making exercise. Why would we want to see a story about a real life incident where people die in 3D.