Captain America

[Michael Olsen]

While I agree, unfortunately if they did it even ONCE the entire internet world erupt with "THEY USED IT AS A GIMMICK WHAT A JOKE"

It's interesting, hearing people who like 3D discuss the implementation of 3D in some of the more recent films. It seems there are two crowds emerging - those that want to be repeatedly hit in the face with the image, and those that just want a 2D picture with more "depth".

Discussions about Harry Potter followed this same categorization - many people enjoyed that it was 3D, but didn't have spells whizzing out over the audience. Others complained that it was "too flat" - that it wasn't "3-D enough".

 

[Eric Rodemann]

It's interesting, hearing people who like 3D discuss the implementation of 3D in some of the more recent films. It seems there are two crowds emerging - those that want to be repeatedly hit in the face with the image, and those that just want a 2D picture with more "depth".

Discussions about Harry Potter followed this same categorization - many people enjoyed that it was 3D, but didn't have spells whizzing out over the audience. Others complained that it was "too flat" - that it wasn't "3-D enough".

IMO, theres' no reason to do the 3d if stuff isn't going to hit you in the face. After 20 minutes, I don't even notice the "picture window" style 3d. I'd be just as entertained with 2d, only I wouldnt' have to wear glasses.

I saw Harry Potter in 3d. It was a waste. If they weren't' going to have spells whizzing over the audience, then why bother? The extra depth alone doesn't add anything to the experience for me. Doesn't make it a better picture, doesn't make the film more engaging. The first few minutes I"m like, oh look, you can see into the screen. That's not something I'm used to seeing. After that, I'm like meh, so what?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see a problem with being subtle about the 3D -- when 3-strip Technicolor came out, there was drama made in it called "Trail of the Lonesome Pine" -- second live-action feature shot in 3-strip and first one shot outdoors on location. The producer and director decided to art direct it in pastels and earth tones so that the color wasn't prominent. A lot of complaints came out along the lines of "why bother to shoot color if you aren't going to show it off?" -- which today sounds like a ludicrous argument, we don't demand to be hit over the head by the color in a color movie today. So why should 3D always have to hit you over the head? Why can't the extra dimensionality just be something that subtly draws you into the physical space of the scene without having objects being shoved into your eyeballs every five minutes, ala "3D House of Pancakes"? Every new technology that comes along is shown off but soon filmmakers start to use it in more subtle ways, like zooms, jump cuts, color, etc.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I don't see a problem with being subtle about the 3D -- when 3-strip Technicolor came out, there was drama made in it called "Trail of the Lonesome Pine" -- second live-action feature shot in 3-strip and first one shot outdoors on location. The producer and director decided to art direct it in pastels and earth tones so that the color wasn't prominent. A lot of complaints came out along the lines of "why bother to shoot color if you aren't going to show it off?" -- which today sounds like a ludicrous argument, we don't demand to be hit over the head by the color in a color movie today. So why should 3D always have to hit you over the head? Why can't the extra dimensionality just be something that subtly draws you into the physical space of the scene without having objects being shoved into your eyeballs every five minutes, ala "3D House of Pancakes"? Every new technology that comes along is shown off but soon filmmakers start to use it in more subtle ways, like zooms, jump cuts, color, etc.

Obviously it's subjective. But the answer for me is simple. It does not draw me into the physical space. Forr the first 20 minutes it looks like a gimmick (wow, I can see into the theater screen!) then my brain adjusts, and it's no different than looking at a 2d movie, except I have to wear glasses and it's a little more of a strain on my eyes. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It's kind of interesting that people think that in order to be drawn into a 3D movie things have to fly at your face, if things flew in your face like that in real life you'd either wake up in hospital, get knocked out or be killed.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I mostly enjoyed the film. Not everthing worked for me but I felt it showed a high level of craftsmenship. Pity it was so blurry. I guess all the CG work took it's toll on the cropped 1080 image.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

It's kind of interesting that people think that in order to be drawn into a 3D movie things have to fly at your face, if things flew in your face like that in real life you'd either wake up in hospital, get knocked out or be killed.

My point is that after 20 minutes, the 3d looks like 2d to me, only with some more eyestrain. It does not "draw me in" because you turned the movie screen into a picture window. Again, this is subjective, and it may in fact draw you into the movie.

If it does not "draw me in" (and I am telling you point blank it does not) then why do it?

And seriously, "in real life"?

We're talking about Captain America being turned from a skinny guy into a hulking super hero, fighting a guy with a red skull face that uses magic super crystals to power a doomsday device that ultimately backfires and sends him to another dimension.

But if something flies in your face, THAT is going to break your suspension of disbelief because it's not like "real life"?

Ok.