So was I. It’s annoying trying to convey tone on the internet.

And I said I work for a .org… not actually a .org website (though we do have one), but simply an organisation. Don’t know who hosts our website.

Well, I have a .com website, even though I’m not a company, lol. I wanted a .us domain but the .com was cheaper at the time, and I just wanted to avoid .org lol.

Who do you have hosting for you? I have 1&1 and LOVE it, fast, ample features and storage, and cheapest around that I could find.

I work for a .org, trust me, we’re anything but truthful.

And we’re one of the nice ones.

What I just typed right there would never be allowed on a .org website.

I do hate 3D gimmicks like Beowulf 3D or whatever, with the constant pointing things into the screen crap, but I did like Up in 3D, not that it wasn’t good in 2D, but it did immerse you a little bit more in my opinion. But it’s an option, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it in 3D, so I don’t see what all of the fuss is against it. Nobody’s forcing it on you.

Okay, yeah, that’s cool.

Keep in mind Joshi that when the theaters upgrade their movie theaters to full digital 3D/ compatible. All this subliminal technology comes right along with it. The film doesn’t have to be 3D to impliment this. So as you can see the 3D push that Hollywood is bent on developing has many applications…

As for the subliminal images thing, any chance you could link me to said article or let me know which publication it was? I’d be interested to read it.

ONE study in making 3-D Tv technology accidentally revealed, Like frequencies in old CRT TVs, now, the audio thanks to high end digital sound can mix sound we cannot even pick up consciously. However, 3-D has a special layering system in how it sends the image feed. It can use flash images and text for the viewer to pick up subconsciously.

An article in one science journal I read mentioned this as a good way to ‘educate’ young people by making their subconscious
pick up words in connection to the images so they learn through that.

Oh there’s a plan going on with 3-D. Disney is a big part of it so are hollywood biggies such as Katzenberg and even Cameron…

Vic

I’ve made no secret of my disdain for 3D, I feel it’s a fad that adds absolutely nothing to a movie (if the movie is better for the 3D it wasn’t much of a movie to begin with and will only be worse in a home environment, if it’s no better with 3D, then what was the point in the first place).

My comment about Lasseter was made simply to compare him to others who use 3D in an almost abusive fashion on screen (like in Monsters Vs Aliens) instead of simply to add a little depth (like in Bolt, and I only saw Bolt in 3D to see what all the fuss was about).

Frankly, I have less disdain for Disney than I have for 3D itself. At least as far as Pixar is concerned, we can get consistently decent movies out of them, but when studios like Dreamworks come up with a “Kung Fu Panda” once every 7-8 years and then saturate the market with cheap crap like Shrek 17: Shrek and the Beanstalk… well lets just say there are many more studios I can direct my hate towards than Disney.

But I saw Bolt in both normal and 3D and they didn’t seem to want to go for the gimmick there. I feel John Lasseter would kind of be against that, I feel he has a little more integrity than that (actually, having heard him in audio commentaries, I now picture him reading this comment and laughing manically, but I still stand by that statement).

Just curious, do you think they will actually change the movie to add these gimmicks in or do you think making them 3D that somehow the content of the movie will include gimmickier things? I mean, did the non-3D version include broomsticks going into the screen? If not, I don’t see how that would end up in the 3D version…