View single post by CleburneFan
 Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2012 01:21 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1019
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 Hellcat, We'll have to disagree on this one. I go to movies every week, many in 3-D, some also in I-MAX such as the last Batman, the one with Heath Ledger as the Joker. Yes, some are definitely better than others. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was better than many others for its use of 3-D. Some 3-D movies are hit-or-miss and really only appears in parts of the movie--a huge disappointment.

I have never been in a theater in which I was told there were not enough or no 3-D glasses. This movie in question did not charge extra for the 3-D, but most movies do carry an extra charge for the effect.

This movie did not have X-BOX seats available, though. Those are the ones that move with the soundtrack noise, so let's say, if, for example, there is a train wreck, you will get a heck of a trouncing in that seat...for a premium ticket, of course.

I know the topic of 3-D has become controversial among producers. My feeling is that it works better in movies with lots of action, CGI and in animated features. It is of little use in straight dramas and needless in comedies such as Adam Sandler's and Ben Stiller's typical fare or the upcoming "Ted" about a filthy-mouthed teddy bear.

I strongly feel the 3-D did add to the "AL:VH" experience, but have seen movies in which I felt it was just a wasted gimmick. Some directors don't seem to be able to think in 3-D and don't know how and when to employ it to best effect,just as very early directors weren't all equally skilled at adding sound to their movies when that technology developed.

Last edited on Thu Jun 28th, 2012 01:23 pm by CleburneFan