Crazy Eight wrote:I've been reading a lot of people complain about the dimness of the 3D for this film. Seems like if you want to see it in 3D, do so in Digital IMAX. Currently the brightest systems out there.

Crazy Eight wrote:I've been reading a lot of people complain about the dimness of the 3D for this film. Seems like if you want to see it in 3D, do so in Digital IMAX. Currently the brightest systems out there.

Jax_Teller wrote:

Peace wrote:
lol sorry.

I was typing in a hurry.

The Amazing Spiderman.

Ah yes. What they did with the 3D on this movie is weird. I've read complaints that a bunch of the movie doesnt seem to be IN 3D, and it is correct, most of it is 3D with very little separation, meaning you remove the glasses, and you can see very clearly as it appears to be 2D. However, they cranked up the 3D on the action scenes and it does look great on those scenes, seeing Spidey coming out of the screen, the first person view shots look glorious too, the swinging looks fantastic, very immersive. Just disappointed that they chose to dial down the 3D for dialogue or narrative scenes.

Although TASM 2 will be a conversion, shot on film, I think they'll really use it more this time, has the potential to be spectacular with Electro, and more Spidey greatness.

Plus, 3D conversions are really getting better and better, Jurassic Park looks stunning, Titanic did too. I'll see STID in 3D since the prologue looked really good, I wont see World War Z in 3D for example because you can tell it'll be a rushed job, and too much cutting for the 3D to be comfortable, however, movies like Pacific Rim (since ILM can render, as Del Toro said (and he made sure that it looks appropriate), all the stuff in native 3D for all the CG elements) or The Wolverine could look really cool in 3D.

Sorry for my big talk about 3D but it's really something that I dig when it's well done and smartly used. Iron Man 3 looks rubbish in 3D, they dont use it all, very little depth, missed opportunity here.

A movie like The Great Gatsby definitely benefits from 3D, it's the prime example of a movie where the 3D is so natural (well at least to me, I never had any problem enjoying 3D, no headaches or anything) that you tend to forget about it, because it feels right, but remove the glasses and see the picture flatten, in TGG for example, the 3D draws you in and even IMO makes narrative scenes such a simple dialogue more palpable and intimate, by showing you the different layers of the shots, having that clear separation of what constitutes foreground, background, position of the actors, etc.

FreakLikeMe wrote:I felt it superior to Star Trek (2009) in certain situations, but lacking in others; however, I can say that it is the better of the two and -- this may be an unpopular opinion -- is the best sci-fi film in the 33 years since 1980 (guess which one still tops it?).