Subscriber razspazz Posted August 21, 2013 Subscriber Share Posted August 21, 2013 Rant for today (*note Wednesday is a Red Whine day). So I hate 3D in film. All I want from a movie is a good story; a good show. I want to enjoy beautiful photography, and be intrigued/enthralled/enchanted....whatever. What I don't want, is to be wearing an obtrusive pair of ridiculous oversize goggles, all the while wondering if my partner who needs to wear glasses anyway can actually really see what I'm seeing, and thus feel what I'm being led to feel. Why do i protest thus? Well, there were 2 films I WAS going to fork out some cash to see. They both screened in 3D on THE BIG SCREEN, However the only option for good old 2D was in a tiny theater on a screen not much bigger than our TV. Guess what Hollywood? Feck yer ticket prices...If I can't even PAY to see the films I want to see on a BIG ENORMOSCREEN, in Dolby Surround Stereo...I may as well just download them for free, and watch them in the comfort of home...in Dolby surround Stereo....for the ticket price of feck all. Now I understand the artists, and the creators of the art...'see it how we envisioned you seeing it! Experience it our way!' YOU ARE WRONG. Film in 3d, 4D, Double D sux. Will always suck, and do not get me started on the 4D experience with moving chairs. If i want smoke blown in my face, I invite my pot head friends. If i want Water splashed about, I bring in the drunks. Moving Chairs? We are earthquake prone. Filmmakers....you want to make a better film? Start with a Great STORY. Are we done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Malahide Posted August 21, 2013 Subscriber Share Posted August 21, 2013 So, you don't like U23D? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber razspazz Posted August 21, 2013 Author Subscriber Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) I like it; but I like it in 2D equally. 3D adds nothing...it dosen't equal the experience of 'being there'. If the sound quality is good there is no benefit. WAIT, let me qualify that by stating i actually think Rattle and Hum was a superior FILM. U23D is a mere recording of something that happened. Ratlle and Hum even dispensed with colour for the most part. The images captured had impact. They were designed to have impact. The U23D performance is great. I don't believe it has anything to do with the 3D technology. Edited August 21, 2013 by razspazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber peterferris8 Posted August 21, 2013 Subscriber Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Totally agree with you Raz. U2 doing a gig film is fine, but doing it in 3D was a waste of money. 3D is hideously overrated. Edited August 21, 2013 by peterferris8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Koke-dera Posted August 21, 2013 Subscriber Share Posted August 21, 2013 Anyone see Pina? Curious whether there's an opinion on 3D vs. 2D on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Sunflower1mdp Posted August 22, 2013 Subscriber Share Posted August 22, 2013 U2 in 3D was the only 3D film I enjoyed. But yeah, it's annoying how everyone is making films in 3D, most of them don't need to be. I hate the glasses, too! My husband who is a big movie fan doesn't care for the trend either. He's noticed that anytime he sees a film that was converted to 3D, it gives him a bad headache. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.