Consider that in the “Dark Knight” we have an instance where a body drops down at us hanged, dangling from the high rise, camera focusing on the body thru the window. The grisly scene, where the copy cat batman has been used by the Joker to terrorize and work his opponents, and make the audience jump. Cheap gimmick or ratcheting effect? If this movie had been 3-D and in the hands
of a lesser talent, the temptation might be enacted upon to use it again and again. Which people would see as a mistake, an abuse of the style to
force the tone. I think that’s what Vic is talking about. It must serve
the story first and foremost, the fact that it made the audience jump, was
just a bonus. Subtle synergism can’t be denied either. If it subtracts from
the overall work then it was unnecessary. Consider the episode of the
“Simpson’s” where Homer slips from the 2-Dimensional world into the world
of 3-D behind the book case. Would that scene been as effective in continuous
2-dimensions. Then they take it a step further into mixed 3-d animation
with live action. A subtle fourth dimensional effect can even be inferred by the era that the action is dressed, that he falls into. Would that story been
tellable and as effective without the 3-D/live action effects?

Not a comment on your article. Sorry for the confusion.

I wrote that post and read through the comments and have NO idea where you’re getting the inference that 3D makes a bad movie better or that removing 3D from a movie makes it better.

NO one has said anything of the sort, so what’s your beef?

All I said is that I think used in a subtle way, 3D can enhance the moviegoing experience.

Vic

Get it through your skulls people, most 3D movies suck because they are relying on the gimmick to sell tickets, so they skim on the film itself. It is 100% purely due to poor movie making, not the fact that it’s 3D. I would pretend to be an athlete and say it is 110%, but we all know how physically impossible it is for someone to give over 100%, lol.

Anyway, I’ve said this so many times, and it’s an obvious fact, yes, FACT, not opinion, since how many dimensions a picture has can not, in any way, affect the actual content of that image.

Hey gotta say your site looks cool, but you make it way too hard to leave a comment…
That’s one thing that I’ve allways loved about Screen Rant is that Vic makes it so easy, no matter what format your using,,,

790

This film is so lame, that 3D will actually improve it. That’s if you got the time to waste on this craptacular horror film.
(Lifes to short for films like this).

There will always be a place for holodecks and interactive movies (for an early preview, see modern video games), but having the director draw your attention to specific areas or specific objects of interest will always be accomplished better with film.

So then, there’s only a few areas where film (or a static viewpoint) can improve: 3D (depth), Heat (heat), and Smell (stink). 3D’s coming no matter what, and will be a standard far before holodecks or stinkers.

I realize that the 3-D is a good way to enhance the film. I just was joking that the holodeck would be a MUCH better way to experience the film. Imagine BEING on the Enterprise, or seeing Spiderman swinging over your head….

I HATED Beowulf though…

There may still be hope when Grease, The Wizard of Oz, and The Lord of The Rings are re-released in 3D.