|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
3D is a money making gimmick that will slip away as did sensurround in the 1970's.
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Why are on-demand services threatening the art of qualitiy cinemagoing any more than DVD and BluRay? Usually those are still Day & Date releases. Quote:
If the future of cinema belongs to 3D, I'm sorry for the 15-20% who can't see 3D and therefore are being excluded from the experience of seeing a movie in the cinema. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
I, for one, disagree with 3D, which has "infested" our film experience by dividing you from your film. 3D is meant to generate a surreal and realistic experience, creating a sense that you're with the movie itself. In my opinion, that is not the case. I feel that it forms a barrier from your movie seat and the big screen, as everything seems more fake. Some films are put in 3D just for the sake of it, and therefore add no experience value out of watching the film in 3D, as it is needless and doesn't fit in with the actual movie. Some movies (very little) are acceptable in 3D, like Avatar, as 3D fits in the role of the film. If a film offers a choice between 2D and 3D, I usually pick 2D. Unfortunately, it seems that (almost) every film is either showcased in 3D, or solely in 3D, which I find increasingly infuriating.
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
The thing is, now that we're introducing 3D so much into film, it's becoming harder to control because many people think it looks good on screen. If this starts to dominate cinema, who knows what will happen to the quality of films?
|
![]() |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 AM.




Linear Mode
