It's not the medium that creates the great work, but the originality in the way it's used. Any medium can be good, so any genre can be good in 3D. I know now 3D is a legitimate artistic medium after watching Cave of Forgotten Dreams (I highly disagree that this film is just as effective without 3D), Hugo, and, most importantly, Pina, which is one of the most beautiful movies I've seen this year.
I completely agree with Mark on this one. Having just read The Great Gatsby I couldn't believe it when I saw that it was being made in 3D. One thing is to make a big budget action film in the 3rd dimension, but a drama about post war disillusionment and broken dreams?? To make matters even worse it is being made by Baz Lurhmann whose films I am no fan of at all. Why couldn't Gatsby have been remade by David Fincher with Brad Pitt playing Gatsby and Ed Norton playing Nick Carraway and in 2D!!
3D emphasizes visuals. i think a drama film would be better off in 2D. Although it's not so about a genre, rather than about a movie itself and the plot. if the story is not as important as visual expression - than let it be in 3D. + for me, 3D is more about entertainment rather that art. indie films will never be made in 3D, i think.
I agree with what lots of others have being saying/writing about 3D. It is ultimately a distraction from film narrative. Now, if a particular film is meant more as an 'experience' rather than a story, so be it. If this sophisticated 3D effect was available in 1968, Kubrick may have decided to use it for 2001. Perhaps also Fellini for Satyricon. That sort of thing.
I thought 3D was put to great use in Herzog's documentary. I thought Avatar was mind-numbingly boring, with or without the 3D.
I can't think of any film genres or even stories that would be improved by the addition of 3D. The problem with 3D is that it is designed to take you out of the story by "immersing" you in the picture. That is one reason why Avatar's story is so one-dimensional.
How about the 10 o'clock news in 3D, or Embarassing Bodies in 3D?
3D may just work for some documentaries and some experimental films with little or no narrative.
I guess it is up to the style of the film if it's 3D or not. If we look at Sci-fi; Sci-fi films like Tron or Avatar or others with larger than life visuals would obviously suit 3D, if the aesthetics etc add up to it. But what about Moon; a small independent movie, would it suit the effect more or less? Personally, I think less, as the style of this film was subtle and had an independent sense about it (probably because it was). I think its the film as an individual, not the genre, personally.
3D is just a buzzword in today's film, much like it was back in the 50's when films were playing around with the ideal and it failed. When Kurosawa's stuff starts getting digitally remastered, in 3D, by George Lucas then I'll be scared.
I feel less engaged when I watch 3D movies. It's hard for me to suspend my disbelief and identify with the films as I find it impossible to forget that I've got the goofy glasses on. The darker picture doesn't help.
I think 3D could definitely work for a drama, as long as it was something like a Welles movie with deep focus, long takes, and multi-layered staging. It would be used as a tool to heighten a Bazinian reality.
Here is a golden rule I learnt when playing Amnesia the dark descent, a subtle horror game(works for movies), wearing headphones is a must.if you want to try a horror game download it via steam (its like itunes but for games) for £13, it's graphics aren't heavy but the games mostly in the dark so you won't notice, the controls are basic, use the mouse to move your head and arrow keys to move your body, thats it.
two hints 1) close the doors behind you 2) stay out of the water
I actually thought the new Tron film was really suited to the 3D format and added to immersing you in that world.
I think the best formats would be documentary films on various subjects from travel to reality crime shows etc. Watching these in 3D could potentially add to the 'reality' of experiencing real life.
Science fiction is a no brainer but i thought Avatar wasn't as good as it was cracked up to be.
I will hold my breath on 3D until we see what Ridley can do with his Prometheus project.
I actually do believe 3d would be suited to video games (i mean when they've perfected the technology, not in it's current state). "Hardcore" gamers now use headphones to play online, because it gives a 3d perspective for hearing opponents aswell as playing on a 25inch screen that's only 2 feet from their face, like i said below if 3d instead of stabbing me in the face goes in the opposite direction and makes distant things feel distant then I'm all for it
Here's what I don't get about 3d, if it's supposed to be "immersive" why isn't it going in the opposite direction, instead of trying to stab me in the face,if anything it's reducing immersion, if 3d added distance in the viewing instead of reducing it i might have prefered it
but to get the best 3d effects, all you need is a camera/editor (if cgi) to use proper focusing, that's all the brain needs, thats why you can tell when backdrops look fake because it's in focus when the actors are as well
The thing about Gatsby being in 3D somewhat undermines the point of the book. Sure Gatsby and the narrator are somewhat 3 dimensional characters, but the old money gang are just seen as being rich. The narrator viewed them in one dimension: they're rich! Plus it's about how money and social hierarchy ruins the concept of the American Dream. Filming this in 3D thus making a big budget film kiiinda ruins the idea. Unless Luhrmann is making an ironic statement ... which i can't help but doubt.
It should only be used for big-budget sci-fi action adventure films (if at all). Although, I saw Tron Legacy in 3D and hated it. The 3D made it too dark and saturated. For a movie with such beautiful colors, this was a disappointment.
drama, romantic comedy, straight non event non FX flicks 2D
i've seen a couple of 3D both designed for 3D and the post production 3D i don't like either very much and i honestly believe it is nothing more than a fad to screw you out of more money it neither adds or takes away from the films, and what a coincidence it arrives just as the world hits a recession. funny that
Before I say anything, this constant 3D 'discussion' is getting very old. Every Wittertainment there's something about it.
But to make a point, I really feel that 3D, while I dislike it and feel it really detracts from the cinema experience, should be reserved for films like Transformers. Big, high budget movies full of special effects. I haven't read The Great Gatsby, but from what I can gather is a drama of some sort, and I really feel 3D has no place there.
if anything it should be forbidden since it forces parents whose children want to see something in the cinema to pay extra for something probably not even the children care about
when i wanted to watch toy story 3 with my little cousin it was not possible to find a 2d screening anywhere so if you don't want to pirate the movie you are forced to pay 3 extra euros
I've always thought of 3D as just a gimmick to sell tickets but I suppose there would be certain cases in which it would be appropriate. I saw a documentary on the International Space Station in 3D at imax before it was popularised and I must admit it was a truly enjoyable experience because of the use of perspective. I don't think there is any particular genre that can be clearly defined as 'right' or 'wrong' for 3D rather that a film which is shot in 3D should have a purpose for the effect.
Whats this!? Another Kermode video about 3D! Only joking the discussion is clearly relevant again with now a wave of 3D movies being released by esteemed directors who may or may not be using 3D in the correct way. I'd say 3D really lends itself to Sci-fi, as much as I hate myself for saying it I'd love it if the next Star Trek movie was in 3D so I could see a huge Starship Enterprise flying towards me!
The thing that shocked me the most wasn't the fact of remaking The Great Gatsby in 3D, but having Baz Luhrmann at the helm, that guy shouldn't be allowed to stand near a camera ever again.
Oh my God you people are such sycophants. 3D is fine, Kermode is such a luddite that he would have probably been this riled about colour being introduced in film.
3D is just an over-hyped gimmick to offset all of the money being lost due to movies on demand. Even in Avatar, after the first 20 minutes you get used to it and then there is no 3D spectacle to it anymore.
You live your life in 3D, if that doesn't blow your mind every second, then sitting in a cinema with annoying glasses for 2 hours surely shouldnt.
frank millar films would be great in 3d but very little else.. i would have loved to have seen a 300 in 3D and im slightly interested in what star wars will be like even though lucas is rubbish
I believe Horror, sorry torture porn/slasher, films are totally wrong for 3D. We know the fake looking axe coming towards us isn't real, so why bother? It's simply tacky and fake.
3D is a gimmick. Until they can shoot the pictures straight into our brain stem, we'll always be wearing those glasses, which puts up a barrier and, I feel, removes you partly from the cinematic experience.
I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams in 3D earlier. It was mostly good, some fuzzy 3D bits, not sure if that's just me, but there were moments when they were outside and you could tell the colours were dulled and the image was darker and I was just thinking .. I bet that would look better in 2D and now I really want to see it in 2D!
Good Q&A with the man tho! Good old Duke of Yorks Picture House!
The genre of the Big Dumb Roland Emmerich Movie would probably be best suited for 3D, or any kind of movie that relies more on spectacle than story or characters.
Of course, why anyone would want to experience a theme park ride where the thrill of being on an actual rollercoaster or simulator and having stuff physically come at you really fast and really loud is replaced with dull exposition and boring dialogue is more than beyond me.
I suppose 3D could be used for great effect in movies like Baraka or Koyaanisqatsi. Truly visual spectacles that may get a good boost from the 3D depth perception (though there's still the issue of darkened picture and smudged colour).
In my opinion 3D is at its best in short films which you watch because of the 3D. With that in mind I still consider The Muppets 3D, an attraction in Disney World, to be the best use of 3D because the entire plot is the 3D.
In the end the problem with 3D in long films with a story is that it is a distraction. What also annoys me about the success of 3D is that it might make people less interested in seeing 3D at its best, in theme parks.
I also am anticipating the sight of a yellow car crashing out towards me – in 3D! – having just run over Myrtle Wilson. O that would be such an ironic depiction of the casualties of technological advances!
As you can see 3D could be used to great effect in expanding the messages of The Great Gatsby...
I can't wait to see Gatsby throwing colourful shirts right out of the screen in 3D (I can almost catch them!), and ultimately landing in messy heaps, symbolising the emptiness, dissatisfaction, and superficiality of 3D, which is revealed to be only a shadow of its former promises, and the excess money that the filmmakers earn through 3D.
I don't see anything wrong with 3D, as long as it is not retro-fitted. It never detracts from a film, in my opinion, and I always appreciate the cool feeling I get when I realise that the picture has enhanced depth. falling/ pointy pointy things are always cooler in 3D.
When seeing Tron at Imax, there was a trailer for a 3D documentary shot during the shuttle mission to upgrade Hubble. Looked pretty sweet. Stuff that's less action and more about characters? No, if the characters need 3D to be multidimensional, the film probably isn't very good to begin with.
It's not the medium that creates the great work, but the originality in the way it's used. Any medium can be good, so any genre can be good in 3D. I know now 3D is a legitimate artistic medium after watching Cave of Forgotten Dreams (I highly disagree that this film is just as effective without 3D), Hugo, and, most importantly, Pina, which is one of the most beautiful movies I've seen this year.
TrevorKingKwong 1 week ago
I completely agree with Mark on this one. Having just read The Great Gatsby I couldn't believe it when I saw that it was being made in 3D. One thing is to make a big budget action film in the 3rd dimension, but a drama about post war disillusionment and broken dreams?? To make matters even worse it is being made by Baz Lurhmann whose films I am no fan of at all. Why couldn't Gatsby have been remade by David Fincher with Brad Pitt playing Gatsby and Ed Norton playing Nick Carraway and in 2D!!
PANDAPILCH 2 months ago
3D emphasizes visuals. i think a drama film would be better off in 2D. Although it's not so about a genre, rather than about a movie itself and the plot. if the story is not as important as visual expression - than let it be in 3D. + for me, 3D is more about entertainment rather that art. indie films will never be made in 3D, i think.
Veelzevula 10 months ago
I agree with what lots of others have being saying/writing about 3D. It is ultimately a distraction from film narrative. Now, if a particular film is meant more as an 'experience' rather than a story, so be it. If this sophisticated 3D effect was available in 1968, Kubrick may have decided to use it for 2001. Perhaps also Fellini for Satyricon. That sort of thing.
I thought 3D was put to great use in Herzog's documentary. I thought Avatar was mind-numbingly boring, with or without the 3D.
terratrema 11 months ago
I can't think of any film genres or even stories that would be improved by the addition of 3D. The problem with 3D is that it is designed to take you out of the story by "immersing" you in the picture. That is one reason why Avatar's story is so one-dimensional.
How about the 10 o'clock news in 3D, or Embarassing Bodies in 3D?
3D may just work for some documentaries and some experimental films with little or no narrative.
avastyer 11 months ago
I guess it is up to the style of the film if it's 3D or not. If we look at Sci-fi; Sci-fi films like Tron or Avatar or others with larger than life visuals would obviously suit 3D, if the aesthetics etc add up to it. But what about Moon; a small independent movie, would it suit the effect more or less? Personally, I think less, as the style of this film was subtle and had an independent sense about it (probably because it was). I think its the film as an individual, not the genre, personally.
notaninvaildname 11 months ago
3D is just a buzzword in today's film, much like it was back in the 50's when films were playing around with the ideal and it failed. When Kurosawa's stuff starts getting digitally remastered, in 3D, by George Lucas then I'll be scared.
EcologicalFighter 11 months ago
I feel less engaged when I watch 3D movies. It's hard for me to suspend my disbelief and identify with the films as I find it impossible to forget that I've got the goofy glasses on. The darker picture doesn't help.
VirtuesPenumbra 11 months ago
I think 3D could definitely work for a drama, as long as it was something like a Welles movie with deep focus, long takes, and multi-layered staging. It would be used as a tool to heighten a Bazinian reality.
baskil 11 months ago
Here is a golden rule I learnt when playing Amnesia the dark descent, a subtle horror game(works for movies), wearing headphones is a must.if you want to try a horror game download it via steam (its like itunes but for games) for £13, it's graphics aren't heavy but the games mostly in the dark so you won't notice, the controls are basic, use the mouse to move your head and arrow keys to move your body, thats it.
two hints 1) close the doors behind you 2) stay out of the water
etocadet 11 months ago 4
@etocadet Agreed!
WhoNeedsNME 11 months ago
An intelligent drama in tasteful 3D would be great. Hopefull Luhrman does it with Gatsby.
musicman02 11 months ago
I actually thought the new Tron film was really suited to the 3D format and added to immersing you in that world.
I think the best formats would be documentary films on various subjects from travel to reality crime shows etc. Watching these in 3D could potentially add to the 'reality' of experiencing real life.
Science fiction is a no brainer but i thought Avatar wasn't as good as it was cracked up to be.
I will hold my breath on 3D until we see what Ridley can do with his Prometheus project.
solarwinter86 11 months ago
Fantasy and Sci-fi and that's it! And no cartoon adaptations either! Straight Fantasy and sci-fi films in 3D.
Hyman74Roth 11 months ago
So when are we gonna get the Feelies from Huxley's Brave New World, huh? Prefer that or the aforementioned smello vision to this 3D shite...
Sneaking suspicion that, presuming he makes it in 3D, that Luhrmann is making an ironic statement about capitalist greed with this... Hope so
arbeitsscheuer 11 months ago
They should do it in smello vision .
ashleywetherall 11 months ago
I actually do believe 3d would be suited to video games (i mean when they've perfected the technology, not in it's current state). "Hardcore" gamers now use headphones to play online, because it gives a 3d perspective for hearing opponents aswell as playing on a 25inch screen that's only 2 feet from their face, like i said below if 3d instead of stabbing me in the face goes in the opposite direction and makes distant things feel distant then I'm all for it
etocadet 11 months ago
@etocadet hell no, keep 3D away from my video games >:(
HamGreenandEggs 11 months ago
Here's what I don't get about 3d, if it's supposed to be "immersive" why isn't it going in the opposite direction, instead of trying to stab me in the face,if anything it's reducing immersion, if 3d added distance in the viewing instead of reducing it i might have prefered it
but to get the best 3d effects, all you need is a camera/editor (if cgi) to use proper focusing, that's all the brain needs, thats why you can tell when backdrops look fake because it's in focus when the actors are as well
etocadet 11 months ago
Tell me a good story, and you won't need 3D.
InfiniteWhizBang 11 months ago
The thing about Gatsby being in 3D somewhat undermines the point of the book. Sure Gatsby and the narrator are somewhat 3 dimensional characters, but the old money gang are just seen as being rich. The narrator viewed them in one dimension: they're rich! Plus it's about how money and social hierarchy ruins the concept of the American Dream. Filming this in 3D thus making a big budget film kiiinda ruins the idea. Unless Luhrmann is making an ironic statement ... which i can't help but doubt.
LowBudgetLurker 11 months ago
It should only be used for big-budget sci-fi action adventure films (if at all). Although, I saw Tron Legacy in 3D and hated it. The 3D made it too dark and saturated. For a movie with such beautiful colors, this was a disappointment.
Pettingill 11 months ago
It strikes me as rather ironic to make a movie about capitalist greed, and then shooting it in 3D to make more money.
molnes 11 months ago 11
sci-fi in 3D
big bollox action flicks in 3D
drama, romantic comedy, straight non event non FX flicks 2D
i've seen a couple of 3D both designed for 3D and the post production 3D i don't like either very much and i honestly believe it is nothing more than a fad to screw you out of more money it neither adds or takes away from the films, and what a coincidence it arrives just as the world hits a recession. funny that
editdirt 11 months ago
The Great Gatsby in 3-D… it’s like life imitating an SCTV comedy skit.
BawdyBijinder 11 months ago
''3 don't''. here here
3D doesn't even look good.
ec123456789able 11 months ago
Before I say anything, this constant 3D 'discussion' is getting very old. Every Wittertainment there's something about it.
But to make a point, I really feel that 3D, while I dislike it and feel it really detracts from the cinema experience, should be reserved for films like Transformers. Big, high budget movies full of special effects. I haven't read The Great Gatsby, but from what I can gather is a drama of some sort, and I really feel 3D has no place there.
Imagine Of Gods and Men in 3D.
CaptainAmerica1510 11 months ago
i don't think 3d belongs to children digimation
if anything it should be forbidden since it forces parents whose children want to see something in the cinema to pay extra for something probably not even the children care about
when i wanted to watch toy story 3 with my little cousin it was not possible to find a 2d screening anywhere so if you don't want to pirate the movie you are forced to pay 3 extra euros
AntonGorodetsky 11 months ago
My retort to this video.
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MARK!!!!!!!! SHADDAP ABOUT 3D!!!! GO BACK TO TALKING ABOUT THE EXORCIST OR SOMETHING!!!!!
6000mphx 11 months ago
I've always thought of 3D as just a gimmick to sell tickets but I suppose there would be certain cases in which it would be appropriate. I saw a documentary on the International Space Station in 3D at imax before it was popularised and I must admit it was a truly enjoyable experience because of the use of perspective. I don't think there is any particular genre that can be clearly defined as 'right' or 'wrong' for 3D rather that a film which is shot in 3D should have a purpose for the effect.
HamGreenandEggs 11 months ago
While I was reading the book I did think "boy this would be so much better in 3D"
LePierre 11 months ago
i just prefer 2D, it works.
(also i fear change)
mikeige 11 months ago
Whats this!? Another Kermode video about 3D! Only joking the discussion is clearly relevant again with now a wave of 3D movies being released by esteemed directors who may or may not be using 3D in the correct way. I'd say 3D really lends itself to Sci-fi, as much as I hate myself for saying it I'd love it if the next Star Trek movie was in 3D so I could see a huge Starship Enterprise flying towards me!
JimboRocket 11 months ago
well. i mean those 3d pixar films are perfect for 3d,, but if i was to go back and pick a good move to seein 3d it would be russian ark...
strictlysega 11 months ago
I KNEW they'd be discussions about much adapted, well-known classics in 3D! I had a gut feeling this would be coming.
The only thing I think 3D does well is the small particles of dust or something falling or some sort of object like the lanterns in Tangled.
Apart from that, it's like seeing a pop-up book on screen(even if it's shot in 3D). It's not worth the colour loss or headache IMO.
sunnygirly2k4 11 months ago
The thing that shocked me the most wasn't the fact of remaking The Great Gatsby in 3D, but having Baz Luhrmann at the helm, that guy shouldn't be allowed to stand near a camera ever again.
agutierrez20 11 months ago
Oh my God you people are such sycophants. 3D is fine, Kermode is such a luddite that he would have probably been this riled about colour being introduced in film.
qwertyuiopdan1 11 months ago
@qwertyuiopdan1 A Luddite? 3D is almost as old as cinema itself and pre-dates colour film.
LordTrilby 11 months ago
football in 3d is sweet
provenelk 11 months ago
3D is just an over-hyped gimmick to offset all of the money being lost due to movies on demand. Even in Avatar, after the first 20 minutes you get used to it and then there is no 3D spectacle to it anymore.
You live your life in 3D, if that doesn't blow your mind every second, then sitting in a cinema with annoying glasses for 2 hours surely shouldnt.
Cybermotron 11 months ago
3d is a marvellous idea but only when we're talking sf holograms, 3d tele is a bit Meh!
farshnuke 11 months ago
the technology is rubbish, only novelty films work with it, so maybe workplace safety films?
brokenstyx 11 months ago
maybe superhero movies.
RobbieHume 11 months ago
frank millar films would be great in 3d but very little else.. i would have loved to have seen a 300 in 3D and im slightly interested in what star wars will be like even though lucas is rubbish
realMUSICisMUSE 11 months ago
I believe Horror, sorry torture porn/slasher, films are totally wrong for 3D. We know the fake looking axe coming towards us isn't real, so why bother? It's simply tacky and fake.
pIRATEdAVE128 11 months ago
3D is a gimmick. Until they can shoot the pictures straight into our brain stem, we'll always be wearing those glasses, which puts up a barrier and, I feel, removes you partly from the cinematic experience.
vrooomuk 11 months ago
I think Michael Haneke's The White Ribbon would be totally preposterous in 3D.
Quinnmelodeon 11 months ago
Comment removed
Quinnmelodeon 11 months ago
I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams in 3D earlier. It was mostly good, some fuzzy 3D bits, not sure if that's just me, but there were moments when they were outside and you could tell the colours were dulled and the image was darker and I was just thinking .. I bet that would look better in 2D and now I really want to see it in 2D!
Good Q&A with the man tho! Good old Duke of Yorks Picture House!
lydz25 11 months ago
It's only cos they brought out 3D tv's that these films are being pimped to the public so much.
killuminatiTOS 11 months ago
There's so much 3D nowadays it's pretty much the same as 2D
BlackMagnumFilms 11 months ago
It's always a bad, boring, predictable move. Didn't add anything to any movie I've seen anyway.
Lessdeth14 11 months ago
Right - maybe for porn. Wrong - anything else.
Andreano123 11 months ago
I think the 2007 animated short based on Edwin A Abbott's "Flatland" should be re-released in 3D.
zionravescene 11 months ago
I might have to see that Cave Herzog movie in 3D to see if it could be used well for nature-like films, or just be window dressing.
moeezS 11 months ago
ANY excuse for kermode to bring up werner herzog :P
ohthepeppers 11 months ago 2
293rd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heneghan2k9 11 months ago
@Heneghan2k9 312th!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheNoodle97 11 months ago
The genre of the Big Dumb Roland Emmerich Movie would probably be best suited for 3D, or any kind of movie that relies more on spectacle than story or characters.
Of course, why anyone would want to experience a theme park ride where the thrill of being on an actual rollercoaster or simulator and having stuff physically come at you really fast and really loud is replaced with dull exposition and boring dialogue is more than beyond me.
GravesXIII 11 months ago
To 3 or not to 3
IDante1Savage 11 months ago
Yeah I'm with you on "3D is always a bad move". Still waiting for my 3D porno though.
Lateralus347 11 months ago
I don't much, but i recon the being of new hope with the massive space ship passin right above u in 3d will be pretty frikin awsome!
FUNKYWHITEB0Y 11 months ago
I suppose 3D could be used for great effect in movies like Baraka or Koyaanisqatsi. Truly visual spectacles that may get a good boost from the 3D depth perception (though there's still the issue of darkened picture and smudged colour).
ramonoski 11 months ago
In my opinion 3D is at its best in short films which you watch because of the 3D. With that in mind I still consider The Muppets 3D, an attraction in Disney World, to be the best use of 3D because the entire plot is the 3D.
In the end the problem with 3D in long films with a story is that it is a distraction. What also annoys me about the success of 3D is that it might make people less interested in seeing 3D at its best, in theme parks.
GaiashKetoji 11 months ago
I also am anticipating the sight of a yellow car crashing out towards me – in 3D! – having just run over Myrtle Wilson. O that would be such an ironic depiction of the casualties of technological advances!
As you can see 3D could be used to great effect in expanding the messages of The Great Gatsby...
lordtufty 11 months ago
I can't wait to see Gatsby throwing colourful shirts right out of the screen in 3D (I can almost catch them!), and ultimately landing in messy heaps, symbolising the emptiness, dissatisfaction, and superficiality of 3D, which is revealed to be only a shadow of its former promises, and the excess money that the filmmakers earn through 3D.
lordtufty 11 months ago
The audio on these vids are crap. Too quiet, too loud. Sort it out!!
jhuan0 11 months ago
3d just looks terrible. The camera has to be completely stationary in order for it not be blurry and illegible.
Kermode is right, 3d works great for gimmick movies, there is a long history of cheesy b-movies that used 3d.
I would kind of like to see that Herzog thing in 3d though. Exception that proves rule, I guess.
Jcolinsol 11 months ago
3D is always a bad move.
OmegaSupreme989 11 months ago
Gatsby 3D...I was excited about this.
No genres are suited to 3D, it is always a bad move. Why anyone would want to go to the cinema to see dull colours and get a headache is beyond me.
TheEraser92 11 months ago
Maybe shooting The Great Gatsby in 3D is an ironic metaphor for how a 2D personalty can be made to appear 3D
Tomisnever 11 months ago
3D IS ALWAYS A BAD MOVE!
You said it, Mark, not me.
Foebane72 11 months ago
I don't see anything wrong with 3D, as long as it is not retro-fitted. It never detracts from a film, in my opinion, and I always appreciate the cool feeling I get when I realise that the picture has enhanced depth. falling/ pointy pointy things are always cooler in 3D.
lordtufty 11 months ago
When seeing Tron at Imax, there was a trailer for a 3D documentary shot during the shuttle mission to upgrade Hubble. Looked pretty sweet. Stuff that's less action and more about characters? No, if the characters need 3D to be multidimensional, the film probably isn't very good to begin with.
ScottishAtheist 11 months ago
Not a fan of 3D
Even Toy Story 3 looked better in 2D
dinolast 11 months ago
NO more 3D
J0Nramirez 11 months ago
ALWAYS A BAD MOVE! ALWAYS!
UgoStrange 11 months ago
I'm not a fan of 3D.
georginiou 11 months ago
three do not
drplbiftin 11 months ago
FIRST
Heneghan2k9 11 months ago
@Heneghan2k9 More useless than 3D
ChoboReviews 11 months ago