@38dragoon38 Not only is that blatantly untrue, but it also makes you seem like a hipster dick. Helpful advice, cut it off or people will view you as a pretentious asshat.
i just happened to have red/blue 3D glasses in my drawer for no reason, and i can't help but feel that david put them there specially for me to watch this video...
I'll actually have to disagree with David on this one. Watching television is meant to be immersive. It actually hypnotizes the brain to believe on some level that the action being seen on the screen is real. And when I watch a 3D movie, I am not distracted. I actually forget what I'm watching is 3D at all.
3D is a flaky technology at best, the setting for 3D and comfort levels for people is very much dependent on individuals, many of whom can't even see the effects.
For all of those people films in 3D are utterly terrible and could you ever imagine splitting a group of friends because one person can't watch a film in 3D properly?
On top of that, the number of bad films that have just had 3D after effects dumped on them is terrible. Yea, I want to watch a film in 3 to 5 2D layers... Pointless...
It's another cinematic technique, conveying depth can very much help a film. It can show how far down the drop really is, and how big things really are. Basically I think David complains about fucking anything and everything.
3D is amazing on a proper IMAX screen, like the BFI in London. I saw the latest Potter there and it was brilliant. But 3D is pathetic in comparison on a normal cinema screen. It's the difference between amazing depth and a little bit more depth than usual.
That last little bit on 2D art being more popular than 3D art because the artist can control the perspective is actually quite profound, especially for someone interested in game design.
Calling films 3D frustrates me slightly - time is a dimension so surely they're already 3D? Which means that when you see a film in 3D you're seeing in in 4D. Or maybe I'm just being pedantic.
@friendofidiocy Technically, the screen is flat, and in the perspective, it is 2D, whereas in their reality, yes, it is 3D. However, your argument is valid.
@friendofidiocy this may be five months old but every one (even in scientific communities) understands that when people say 3D they refer to three spacial dimensions and 2D two spacial dimensions... only when people say 4D+ do they mean with time, but movies generally take 4D to just mean user interactive.
User interaction technically is 4D, as it's taking place right now in the present. as opposed to the movie itself which was filmed in the past and is not going to change no matter how many times you watch it.
that's a long rant to point out 1) 3D sucks for anyone with glasses, having to wear a bloody second pair! and 2) that the power of storytelling or art is in imagining; indeed, no 3D can cover up the lack of capacity to communicate with others through imagining. 3D rules, if it actually serves a purpose of adding something to the empathetic experience of imagining. Otherwise, it mostly just sucks. A lousy gimmic. Just like colour tv, HD tv or anything technological.
I don't mind 3D. I don't watch 3D films, but I don't mind them being available, assuming a 2D version is also provided. Moreover, I like money, and spending less of mine on a 2D film suits me down to the ground
I'm sure there are loads of people like but, I have found to have a lot of common with David here. I don't like 3d, coffee, smoking, football, parties etc. I know I sound stupid.
3D is doomed to fail, long term. The studios know this but it offers them another revenue stream. Until film holography is perfected, I won't be that bothered by 3D but I suspect the kiddies will be taken in by all the hype and that's all that the studios need.
I wouldn't call 3D "interactivity" and while I certainly don't think it makes a bad movie good, it's clearly here to stay so get used to it. I think it was James Cameron who said that it's just another thing to consider when making a film, like lighting. When done properly it does make the image look more realistic although I've only ever seen this on the high-end TVs and not in the cinema. It's no longer just about trying to reach into the screen.
@Kurru 3D isn't interactive. It's just another way to experience the art. Truly interactive art, like video games, I enjoy. 3D is just a silly gimmick so far.
@TacticusPrime But 3D as it is doesn't pretend to be interactive. Its about the immersion. Its not perfect but its a start. Just need to throw some headtracking in there and it'd be interactive... In any case I enjoy the 3D stuff so far. Seems just to be how it is, either you hate it or love it
FUCK OFF ADVERTS! NUMBER 4 IS SUCH A SHIT FILM. And just because you advertise it to me 5,678,435,752,906.346,456 times, and reload the advert every time i try to skip it by reloading the page doesn't mean I now want to watch it. Please just do the decent thing and die.
is this actually in 3D? i finally got some 3D glasses and curled up excitedly to watch Mitchell in sticky-out glory but it still looks red, blurry and split :'(
There is a big difference in the quality of 3D image between a film that was shot in 3D and one that was altered to be so after-the-fact. The former can look totally engrossing, while the latter's poppy-outie bits look rather flat under scrutiny.
also, it's a bit confusing to say that artists should be able to be the editors and choose how to communicate with their audiences and what they should and shouldn't see,yet this is somehow discounted should the artist decide to maybe use sculpture,interactive art, 3d films,theatre and basically anything that isn't 2d. surely this is also a concious editorial choice? maybe mitchell was being ironic here and i missed it, but wtf?
i'm not saying that 3d films are as monumental as talking pictures but give them a chance. there are rediculous gimmicky films like saw 7 (that would arguably suck anyway) but there is a bit of a flaw in mitchell's argument - surely films are meant to be engrossing and 3d only adds to this illusion? it is somewhat of a fad at the moment but over time i'm sure it will fade in popularity and those that will use it will do so with purpose (on the whole).
@poodlesheep Saw .86 sucked. The thought that 6.14 movies later would be any improvement is beyond argument. It's so near impossible that we should just round down and accept it.
i don't mind 3d. i find it a bit of a guilty pleasure though - some films are released solely for the purpose of viewing it in 3d and are usually shite. however i do get the feeling that it'll be here for a while. the fact that they've started to develop 3d technology without the glasses is a sign of this (3ds for example) and i don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. they all laughed at films with sound when they first emerged (cont.)
I cannot see 3D films and this is extremely aggravating in the world that's increasingly 3-dimensional. I saw Avatar and was violently sick in the Imax. Anyway, it's not as distances cannot be represented in the current tv format! I can tell that some things are supposed to be further away than other things! I'm a student and therefore do not own a tv, but I still have to hear people talking about it.
I get how you could want to watch 5 minutes of something in 3D, but watching a whole 2 hour movie with those stupid glasses on, when there are only a few noticeable 3D bits in it, is just annoying. Granted, I've only seen Toy Story 3 in 3D so I'm not sure how that compares to something like Avatar, but after watching it I had a huge headache. Also as I was wearing short-vision glasses that day I had to put the horrible disney glasses over the top of them which was so uncomfortable.
I like 3D, it enhances the movie once you get used to it. You can also view it as an artistic decision, just like shooting the film in color instead of black and white.
i remember this planet earth special that natl geog. , i think, did with d attenborough narrating and there was no bloody 3 d involved but it seemed to be more real and visually impressive than any 3d movie i ve ever seen because it was brilliantly filmed. great video, thanks for sharing.
bah, I enjoy 3D. He doesn't like it, he wants it destroyed...iahsashauha! If people don't enjoy it they're simply not gonna watch or buy 3D films. if people buy it it's 90% the times cause they enjoy it. I'd be a liar if I'd say 3D is pointless
3D always give me a headache...The glasses are too small for my head and wearing prescription gasses under them also give a headache. As well, I see no point in the 3D in the first place. I fully agree and wish that it is a fad that will go away, preferably sooner.
@Lehrerfan 3D is amazing and I love it! I've always loved 3D stuff, from those anaglyph 3D posters I had as a kid to movies like Avatar and games too! 3D is awesome and I hope it never goes away, you always have the option to watch in 2D if you don't like it :)
@Harperlarp Not always, nower days a lot of cinema's only show it in 3D only. Which is annoying, because while it doesn't give me a head ache it is neither impressive, just, kind of there, like all of reality. Only difference is it costs more, probably the reason why Hollywood is pushing it and cinema's are often not showing the cheaper 2D version.
2D films are quite capable of giving you a sense of being there without the picture being peculiar. I once saw a "Look at life" short film which was shown between the B and A films (you got your money's worth for one shilling and ninepence in those days). It consisted of a lot of shots of English countryside from a helicopter moving quite low at some speed. It is the nearest I have ever come to being airsick.
I hate 3D because I find that it separates the image into a pointy foreground and a flat background. Makes everything look like a more invasive hanna barbara cartoon. Crappy.
Well I suggest you first remove your hidef telly and swap for an old crt, more detail in the picture only distracts. Now remove that 5.1 surround system - how does that improve the viewing experience? Now turn the colour to '0'. Normally a menu or knob with older tellies.
Now with your monaural b&w set maybe add a Betamax VCR you should be able to enjoy the content that little bit more, and maybe have a good argument for not paying the tv licence? Enjoy the good old days :)
@ollyk22 Except none of those things requires one to wear stupid uncomfortable glasses. This is particularly onerous for those of us who wear glasses anyway. Do we take off our glasses and thus enjoy a 3D blur or do we perch the 3D glasses on top of our current pair and risk giving them a scratch? All for a silly gimmick. It isn't smellovision or ACTUAL interactivity. It's not that revolutionary, except for studio profits.
@TacticusPrime I am sorry you find them uncomfortable. Personally I forget I am wearing them and become quite immersed in the 3d environment. I occasionally close one eye to remind myself how backward 2d is, admittedly in the more mundane films with which there are plenty!!
There are plenty of examples where we experience the real world in 3d but yet do not interact, and are still able to absorb relevant information. I don't want interactivity, but IMO 3d is the way forward and will mature into a very effective medium!
The Channel 4's 3D Week (from last November featuring HM the Queen's documentary etc) giveaway "exclusive and fairly nifty spectacles" (Sainsbury's tie-up but made in USA) came in handy. But it looks a bit like a fuzzy monochrome film. David has the point as usual - not worth bothering it.
@GreenFury1976 I totally agree with u, I don't like this 3D effect on movies and I do believe they constitute a poor way of distracting audience from a crap story. However, it also true that innovations come from experimentation and even if the results so far are deadly horrible, the future developments might offer us something valuable. Benefit of the doubt?!
The thing is, his throwing out the 3D glasses to those who don't have them would only have fooled the ones who actually have 3D glasses, so his mentioning them among the people who could have been tricked (and, yes, I KNOW he was joking and didn't actually think anyone was fooled) made no sense. Or maybe, he realised this too, and that was part of the joke. It's always possible that I'm an idiot, as, after all, I am commenting on Youtube.
i have various 3d glasses but none of them work too well for this. is it because they're meant for the theatres? or is it this particular 3d video that isn't done too well?
@reinabeina Yeah I had the same problem. The picture is red and green kind of old school 3D isn't it? It reminds me of some rice bubble pictures I used to have.
@reinabeina It's a different method of 3-D, if you got the glasses from a cinema when seeing Avatar or something then they won't work. You need the cardboard ones with one green eye and one red one...
When "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" came out in 3D, I wanted to watch it just for the special effects. When I found out the stupid theatres here (in Phils.) wer screening the non-3D version, I decided, forget it. There isn't exactly a story to it anyway, the whole point was all the spectacular stuff you get to see (or in the case of the book, imagine) along the way.
The latest go round of 3D is just a gimmicky money grab. It too will go out of style. Again.
ChipArgyle 2 weeks ago
I only have one eye that works. So I'm spared the bother. I curse 3D cinema. Booo!!!!
SiskinOnUTube 2 weeks ago 2
....Right, Where are my signed 3d glasses? Found em! Let's do this shit!
PressXtonotdie 2 weeks ago
I got my goggles in a Lucky Bag. I've had them for 15 years but finally has a reason to use them.
Vizzo69s 2 weeks ago
the glasses he throws at the screen have subliminal advertising for bulldog on them...
hugoafleming 3 weeks ago
@hugoafleming Those sneaky bastards!
RPSM101 2 weeks ago in playlist Series 2
i'm gonna get some glasses and watch this in 3d
Devoti 3 weeks ago 2
@Devoti Doesn't work. Not with the ones you get at the cinema anyway.
TeddyTaplin1 3 weeks ago
Was I the only one who put on his 3D glasses?
DirkStierand 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
even in 3d david mitchell looks shitty - i hate you david and the rest of germany hates you too
Grubi1990 1 month ago
@Grubi1990
Holy shit. You are able to speak for your whole country? I didn't realize that Angela Merkel was a YouTube troll.
monslenomer 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Grubi1990 1 month ago
Ha ha ha! He said "story." The last time a "story" was integral to a film was in 1979.
38dragoon38 1 month ago
@38dragoon38 what a stupid, childish remark.
BarnacleGooseInvalid 1 month ago in playlist More videos from davidmitchellsoapbox
@38dragoon38 Perhaps you've just been watching crap?
weelittledragon 4 weeks ago
@38dragoon38 Not only is that blatantly untrue, but it also makes you seem like a hipster dick. Helpful advice, cut it off or people will view you as a pretentious asshat.
Wuggynaut 3 weeks ago
@38dragoon38 You're adorable.
aksquash 2 weeks ago
Speaking of stupid 3D gimmicks, I thought the thing at the right side of the screen at 1:06 was a
Magic Eye, and spent over a minute trying to see the hidden image.
handsomebrick 1 month ago
i just happened to have red/blue 3D glasses in my drawer for no reason, and i can't help but feel that david put them there specially for me to watch this video...
it was quiet awesome though.
BassLiberators 1 month ago
I want 3D glasses
Izaak247 1 month ago
3D gives me nausia, with or without the glasses... my head is spinning after that.lol
DoYouKnowWhoKnew 1 month ago
I'll actually have to disagree with David on this one. Watching television is meant to be immersive. It actually hypnotizes the brain to believe on some level that the action being seen on the screen is real. And when I watch a 3D movie, I am not distracted. I actually forget what I'm watching is 3D at all.
AtomicRiot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtomicRiot "And when I watch a 3D movie, I am not distracted. I actually forget what I'm watching is 3D at all"
then whats the point of the 3D then? a normal screen is better lit and doesn't hurt your eyes
ajh1234 1 month ago
Comment removed
Kaaxe 2 months ago
This is the only occasion i am glad to own spykids 3D on DVD.
TheTauKnight 2 months ago in playlist Series 2 2
"stuff 3D and all other manifestations of interactivity in art."
so stuff Heavy Rain and Shadow of the Colossus? I disagree.
but yeah 3d in movies doesn't work very well
Disanthrophobia 4 months ago in playlist Series 2
i watched this with 3-D glasses I stole from a movie theater. it is not actually 3-D :(
iamagiantpotato 4 months ago
@iamagiantpotato You have to use the red/blue ones.
DameArgenta 3 months ago
@iamagiantpotato red and blue glasses or those ones that look like sunglasses?
ultrapersonthing 2 months ago
@iamagiantpotato The one's you got from a movie theater are probably polaroid 3D, this is red/blue 3D.
TheSobek 2 weeks ago
all women :) (sorry that will piss you off)
inculoalbalena 4 months ago
[generic comment stating what is already said in the video]
raptoresque 5 months ago 2
3D is a flaky technology at best, the setting for 3D and comfort levels for people is very much dependent on individuals, many of whom can't even see the effects.
For all of those people films in 3D are utterly terrible and could you ever imagine splitting a group of friends because one person can't watch a film in 3D properly?
On top of that, the number of bad films that have just had 3D after effects dumped on them is terrible. Yea, I want to watch a film in 3 to 5 2D layers... Pointless...
crabid 5 months ago
It's another cinematic technique, conveying depth can very much help a film. It can show how far down the drop really is, and how big things really are. Basically I think David complains about fucking anything and everything.
spriterlicous 5 months ago
3D is amazing on a proper IMAX screen, like the BFI in London. I saw the latest Potter there and it was brilliant. But 3D is pathetic in comparison on a normal cinema screen. It's the difference between amazing depth and a little bit more depth than usual.
phoenixfriend 5 months ago
I am wearing 3D glasses and it doesn't look 3D to me...
Anyway, he's hilarious! :D
x
IndigoRockGirl94 5 months ago
A wise man once said "If a film is good, it does not need a cheap gimick to make it better."
Rita3500 5 months ago 3
That last little bit on 2D art being more popular than 3D art because the artist can control the perspective is actually quite profound, especially for someone interested in game design.
RagingLion 7 months ago
Calling films 3D frustrates me slightly - time is a dimension so surely they're already 3D? Which means that when you see a film in 3D you're seeing in in 4D. Or maybe I'm just being pedantic.
friendofidiocy 7 months ago
@friendofidiocy Technically, the screen is flat, and in the perspective, it is 2D, whereas in their reality, yes, it is 3D. However, your argument is valid.
MangaNeoLeo 7 months ago
@friendofidiocy I've been to a cinema to see a 4D movie and no, it is not the same. It involved the seats vibrating and water spraying at us etc.
BlondieGeekable 7 months ago
@BlondieGeekable Good Lord. That sounds like an experience.
friendofidiocy 6 months ago
@friendofidiocy this may be five months old but every one (even in scientific communities) understands that when people say 3D they refer to three spacial dimensions and 2D two spacial dimensions... only when people say 4D+ do they mean with time, but movies generally take 4D to just mean user interactive.
plukerpluck 1 month ago
@plukerpluck
User interaction technically is 4D, as it's taking place right now in the present. as opposed to the movie itself which was filmed in the past and is not going to change no matter how many times you watch it.
BassLiberators 1 month ago
Well thanks, I actually felt like having a nice hot bath.
DogonDrugs 7 months ago
lol - when I saw Michelangelo's David I did walk around the back...not very impressive.
I also found that the back of the Prima Porta Augustus is slightly crudely carved.
jlim2397 7 months ago
IT'S LIKE HE'S IN MY ROOM!!! WHICH IS WEIRD CUZ I'M NAKED!!!!
phagtacular 7 months ago
I agree David: why watch movies in 3D when we can actually SEE in 3D for free??
PoisonTester 8 months ago 3
that's a long rant to point out 1) 3D sucks for anyone with glasses, having to wear a bloody second pair! and 2) that the power of storytelling or art is in imagining; indeed, no 3D can cover up the lack of capacity to communicate with others through imagining. 3D rules, if it actually serves a purpose of adding something to the empathetic experience of imagining. Otherwise, it mostly just sucks. A lousy gimmic. Just like colour tv, HD tv or anything technological.
tiesthijsthejs 9 months ago
All of these criticisms are exactly what was said about colour TV when it came out :p
Muzikman127 9 months ago in playlist Series 2
@Muzikman127 please separate the compulsive critics from the spot on critics.
1) 3D sucks for anyone with glasses, having to wear a bloody second pair! and
2) the power of storytelling or art is in imagining; the capacity to communicate with others by stimulating their imagination.
3D rules, when actually adding something to the empathetic experience of imagining.
Otherwise, 3D mostly just sucks. Just like any lousy gimmic like colour tv, HD tv or anything technological.
tiesthijsthejs 9 months ago
Thor in 3D=Actually pointless. And actually when I took the 3D glasses off, It seemed better.
shaunofthedead93 9 months ago
I don't mind 3D. I don't watch 3D films, but I don't mind them being available, assuming a 2D version is also provided. Moreover, I like money, and spending less of mine on a 2D film suits me down to the ground
jeevesthepunk 9 months ago
i want 2d glasses to make real life more like telly. incidentally, does dave hate his sponsors or summink?
noisyneil 9 months ago
@noisyneil
Try closing one eye, that should reduce your dept perception a bit
fritspas 9 months ago
I'm sure there are loads of people like but, I have found to have a lot of common with David here. I don't like 3d, coffee, smoking, football, parties etc. I know I sound stupid.
LukeGeoDude 9 months ago
ooh! I was fooled...5 times in a row!
burnster2112 10 months ago
Timotei! Kona-chan.
MrNannerman 10 months ago
I love how the Bulldog announcer and David Mitchell have this sort of minor dynamic in a few of these episodes.
Sonicblade128 10 months ago 14
3D is doomed to fail, long term. The studios know this but it offers them another revenue stream. Until film holography is perfected, I won't be that bothered by 3D but I suspect the kiddies will be taken in by all the hype and that's all that the studios need.
Codex7777 10 months ago
does anyone else see the irony of this video
buffaloface1 11 months ago
I knew those 3D glasses I saved would come in handy eventually! Kind of gave me a headache though.
o0FallenAngel0o 11 months ago
Timotei, timotei, timoteeeeii!
God I hope someone else noticed.
Alexc3217 11 months ago 38
@Alexc3217 Ahhhh!! My head just exploded...
WelcomeToBrainland 3 months ago
@Alexc3217 I noticed he said 'timotei' as well.
Conway79 2 months ago
Comment removed
AlexLong1000 1 month ago in playlist Series 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alexc3217 Is that a Lucky Star reference or am I just being stupid?
AlexLong1000 1 month ago in playlist Series 2
I wouldn't call 3D "interactivity" and while I certainly don't think it makes a bad movie good, it's clearly here to stay so get used to it. I think it was James Cameron who said that it's just another thing to consider when making a film, like lighting. When done properly it does make the image look more realistic although I've only ever seen this on the high-end TVs and not in the cinema. It's no longer just about trying to reach into the screen.
93cian 1 year ago
Hate for interactive art? Computer games fall into that category and they're doing pretty well...
Kurru 1 year ago
@Kurru Except it's not interactive...
TacticusPrime 11 months ago
@TacticusPrime Games are interactive?
Kurru 11 months ago
@Kurru 3D isn't interactive. It's just another way to experience the art. Truly interactive art, like video games, I enjoy. 3D is just a silly gimmick so far.
TacticusPrime 11 months ago
@TacticusPrime But 3D as it is doesn't pretend to be interactive. Its about the immersion. Its not perfect but its a start. Just need to throw some headtracking in there and it'd be interactive... In any case I enjoy the 3D stuff so far. Seems just to be how it is, either you hate it or love it
Kurru 11 months ago
I spent more time looking for glasses, than the length of the video...
zwill2001 1 year ago 2
i so agree, 3D is a gimmick and would have fallen back into obscurity by 2014.
ec123456789able 1 year ago
FUCK OFF ADVERTS! NUMBER 4 IS SUCH A SHIT FILM. And just because you advertise it to me 5,678,435,752,906.346,456 times, and reload the advert every time i try to skip it by reloading the page doesn't mean I now want to watch it. Please just do the decent thing and die.
pooisyummy 1 year ago
@pooisyummy get an add blocker, the google chrome one is best
dkmrgn 1 year ago
big blue knockers!
sexdrugsandrave 1 year ago
The end advert... DOUGIE MICHAELS SOAP BOX? D:
icewatever 1 year ago 2
is this actually in 3D? i finally got some 3D glasses and curled up excitedly to watch Mitchell in sticky-out glory but it still looks red, blurry and split :'(
bobbiwib 1 year ago
I agree about it being a fad that detracts from the story, but I don't care, I still love 3D in film.
atombat 1 year ago
But 3D ISN'T interactivity, and interactivity in a medium of art is a great idea.
You said it yourself, then suddenly 'stuff interactivity'? Nope.
LiamNeesonsDick 1 year ago
The only thing I find 3d interesting for is minecraft, it looks quite good but it is pretty much crap :)
CheeseGenius 1 year ago
Willy Wonka is what made me think for a second I could get the glasses he threw at me... not 3D.
AcroStigma 1 year ago 2
i want to like 3D, but it just looks shit and flickers to me. and doesn't work around the edge of the screen
uuufail 1 year ago
There is a big difference in the quality of 3D image between a film that was shot in 3D and one that was altered to be so after-the-fact. The former can look totally engrossing, while the latter's poppy-outie bits look rather flat under scrutiny.
canadiangirl85 1 year ago
I just watched this with some good old red and blues, and now I can't see properly! I'll stick with two dimensions from now on, thank you very much!
superchief86 1 year ago
I like 3D, but I know what he means.
Al1981X 1 year ago
I'm off to have a bath.
casioexz1080 1 year ago
Hurts my eyes!
Experiment47 1 year ago
Why didn't you use YouTube's actual 3D video tag, so we could watch this using, say, the cross-eyed method?
PokemonBlackLP 1 year ago
timotei, pantene, herbal essences and dougie michael
nice
bak2dafuture2 1 year ago
also, it's a bit confusing to say that artists should be able to be the editors and choose how to communicate with their audiences and what they should and shouldn't see,yet this is somehow discounted should the artist decide to maybe use sculpture,interactive art, 3d films,theatre and basically anything that isn't 2d. surely this is also a concious editorial choice? maybe mitchell was being ironic here and i missed it, but wtf?
poodlesheep 1 year ago
i'm not saying that 3d films are as monumental as talking pictures but give them a chance. there are rediculous gimmicky films like saw 7 (that would arguably suck anyway) but there is a bit of a flaw in mitchell's argument - surely films are meant to be engrossing and 3d only adds to this illusion? it is somewhat of a fad at the moment but over time i'm sure it will fade in popularity and those that will use it will do so with purpose (on the whole).
poodlesheep 1 year ago
@poodlesheep Saw .86 sucked. The thought that 6.14 movies later would be any improvement is beyond argument. It's so near impossible that we should just round down and accept it.
existenceisrelative 1 year ago
i don't mind 3d. i find it a bit of a guilty pleasure though - some films are released solely for the purpose of viewing it in 3d and are usually shite. however i do get the feeling that it'll be here for a while. the fact that they've started to develop 3d technology without the glasses is a sign of this (3ds for example) and i don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. they all laughed at films with sound when they first emerged (cont.)
poodlesheep 1 year ago
He has a point. 3D is ridiculous.
lvivboi 1 year ago
yep, headaches all round
antichris78 1 year ago
I cannot see 3D films and this is extremely aggravating in the world that's increasingly 3-dimensional. I saw Avatar and was violently sick in the Imax. Anyway, it's not as distances cannot be represented in the current tv format! I can tell that some things are supposed to be further away than other things! I'm a student and therefore do not own a tv, but I still have to hear people talking about it.
Shadowsi 1 year ago
I get how you could want to watch 5 minutes of something in 3D, but watching a whole 2 hour movie with those stupid glasses on, when there are only a few noticeable 3D bits in it, is just annoying. Granted, I've only seen Toy Story 3 in 3D so I'm not sure how that compares to something like Avatar, but after watching it I had a huge headache. Also as I was wearing short-vision glasses that day I had to put the horrible disney glasses over the top of them which was so uncomfortable.
xvixxenx 1 year ago
if u didnt get ur free goggles with ur pantene lol
wardyladohaye 1 year ago
i h8 3d always gives me a headache
WasLilChrisnowbigish 1 year ago
why does he say herbal when its bull dog? wasn't the company pissed?
Tommiddlecoat 1 year ago
@Tommiddlecoat did you not watch till the end? there is joke about that at 3:00
LaughingOtoko 1 year ago
@Tommiddlecoat It's a joke, like the way characters on The Simpsons always trash Fox.
tml4873 1 year ago
I absolutely hate 3d its completely pointless...after about half an hour into the film you forget that it is 3D.
Rorxz 1 year ago
I like 3D, it enhances the movie once you get used to it. You can also view it as an artistic decision, just like shooting the film in color instead of black and white.
Thatwasnotme 1 year ago
I hope books are just a fad, gleemen are much better at telling a story in my opinion.
bobnine 1 year ago 2
I hope books are just a fad, glee men are much better at telling a story in my opinion.
bobnine 1 year ago
And now Sky are even launching a 3D TV channel. Goody.
I really hope it is just a fad.
DrawnSteelHero 1 year ago
David Mitchell and Mark Kermode need to get together and have a chat.
mattm591 1 year ago
3D games are quite good, but I'm not so keen on the overuse of it in cinema.
satansam 1 year ago
Agh, my brain's gone funny.....
chocomog35 1 year ago
I now have a headache
Spedding101 1 year ago
without 3D glasses davids eyes make him seem like hes posesed by the devil
eddie3078 1 year ago
you dont need 3D glasses, just cross yours eyes a certain way.
Wezzipooh 1 year ago
Ahhh, headache D:
TashaIsDead 1 year ago
We spent so much money on developing colour photography and then it all gets fucked up by a pair of paper and cellulose "glasses".
jacksawild 1 year ago
i remember this planet earth special that natl geog. , i think, did with d attenborough narrating and there was no bloody 3 d involved but it seemed to be more real and visually impressive than any 3d movie i ve ever seen because it was brilliantly filmed. great video, thanks for sharing.
jeremyshambles 1 year ago
bah, I enjoy 3D. He doesn't like it, he wants it destroyed...iahsashauha! If people don't enjoy it they're simply not gonna watch or buy 3D films. if people buy it it's 90% the times cause they enjoy it. I'd be a liar if I'd say 3D is pointless
IdiotsForSale 1 year ago
3D always give me a headache...The glasses are too small for my head and wearing prescription gasses under them also give a headache. As well, I see no point in the 3D in the first place. I fully agree and wish that it is a fad that will go away, preferably sooner.
Lehrerfan 1 year ago 55
@Lehrerfan 3D is amazing and I love it! I've always loved 3D stuff, from those anaglyph 3D posters I had as a kid to movies like Avatar and games too! 3D is awesome and I hope it never goes away, you always have the option to watch in 2D if you don't like it :)
Harperlarp 6 months ago
@Harperlarp Not always, nower days a lot of cinema's only show it in 3D only. Which is annoying, because while it doesn't give me a head ache it is neither impressive, just, kind of there, like all of reality. Only difference is it costs more, probably the reason why Hollywood is pushing it and cinema's are often not showing the cheaper 2D version.
EnglishGavz 5 months ago
@Lehrerfan You are the fox and 3d is the grapes. Too bad you won't know whether the grapes are sour or sweet.
CruelSculpture 4 months ago
Sucks for anyone who got the Bulldog stuff to get the glasses and then get told that they're being ridiculous.
SuperStickmanML13 1 year ago
I was trying to talk to David, but he kept blanking me! He is so rude!
howincrediblyshit 1 year ago 116
@howincrediblyshit thats nothing, he threw a pair of glasses at me :(
frickinradical 9 months ago
I tried to use the new 3D glasses but they don't work so I got out my old Spy Kids 3D glasses...good times...good times XD I love this man.
ABookByAnyOtherName 1 year ago
2D films are quite capable of giving you a sense of being there without the picture being peculiar. I once saw a "Look at life" short film which was shown between the B and A films (you got your money's worth for one shilling and ninepence in those days). It consisted of a lot of shots of English countryside from a helicopter moving quite low at some speed. It is the nearest I have ever come to being airsick.
davidfrom1951 1 year ago
WHAT FUN!
JamesAOK 1 year ago
Comment removed
georgercop 1 year ago
MY EYES!!!! NO GLASSES IT HURTS!!!!
KillerNess90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
looool dis is jokes
>
>check out this comedy video
>its called "GANGSTAS LIKE ICE CREAM" loooool
>youtube.com/watch?v=mXaksfwh1hA
>feel free to subscribe and spread the word to all your friends
MilitantKID8 1 year ago
Comment removed
slowscope 1 year ago
@slowscope I'm on the internet.
lankyGigantic 1 year ago
4 stars.
Aletheophile 1 year ago
I hate 3D because I find that it separates the image into a pointy foreground and a flat background. Makes everything look like a more invasive hanna barbara cartoon. Crappy.
MSSiren 1 year ago
Well I suggest you first remove your hidef telly and swap for an old crt, more detail in the picture only distracts. Now remove that 5.1 surround system - how does that improve the viewing experience? Now turn the colour to '0'. Normally a menu or knob with older tellies.
Now with your monaural b&w set maybe add a Betamax VCR you should be able to enjoy the content that little bit more, and maybe have a good argument for not paying the tv licence? Enjoy the good old days :)
ollyk22 1 year ago 3
@ollyk22 Except none of those things requires one to wear stupid uncomfortable glasses. This is particularly onerous for those of us who wear glasses anyway. Do we take off our glasses and thus enjoy a 3D blur or do we perch the 3D glasses on top of our current pair and risk giving them a scratch? All for a silly gimmick. It isn't smellovision or ACTUAL interactivity. It's not that revolutionary, except for studio profits.
TacticusPrime 1 year ago 2
@TacticusPrime I am sorry you find them uncomfortable. Personally I forget I am wearing them and become quite immersed in the 3d environment. I occasionally close one eye to remind myself how backward 2d is, admittedly in the more mundane films with which there are plenty!!
ollyk22 1 year ago 2
cont..
There are plenty of examples where we experience the real world in 3d but yet do not interact, and are still able to absorb relevant information. I don't want interactivity, but IMO 3d is the way forward and will mature into a very effective medium!
ollyk22 1 year ago 2
I used a pair from an old DVD of Spy Kids 3D. Quite effective.
xxdrosexx 1 year ago
The funniest and most true rant I've seen for a long time.
Icanplaydrums 1 year ago 4
The Channel 4's 3D Week (from last November featuring HM the Queen's documentary etc) giveaway "exclusive and fairly nifty spectacles" (Sainsbury's tie-up but made in USA) came in handy. But it looks a bit like a fuzzy monochrome film. David has the point as usual - not worth bothering it.
:)
snowykay 1 year ago
@snowykay hmm they were colorcode not compatible with this movie.
ollyk22 1 year ago
Comment removed
snowykay 1 year ago
I love how he and tye sponsor are taking potshots at each other, "Doogie Michaels Soapbox".
Kevster1993 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
AhaSeriously 1 year ago
Why oh why didn't Hammer & Tongs get David Mitchell to play Arthur Dent?
waspbloke 1 year ago
Go enjoy a nice herbal essences bath, courtesy of doogie micheals soapbox!
existenceisrelative 1 year ago
'a sort of reference to things like avatar, but using techniques that were old hat by jaws 3'
hahahaha, brilliant.
joeainscough 1 year ago
Does David remind anyone else of Jon Lovitz? Master Thespian? What a duo they'd make! LOL
softkitti 1 year ago
@softkitti -Except that Jon is not fit to lick the shoes of David.
gradgurl2007 1 year ago
David should do a bit with Jon Lovitz. His American 'twin'.
softkitti 1 year ago
I swear, David Mitchell should do a bit with Jon Lovitz, his American doppelganger.
softkitti 1 year ago
fucking genius, I totally agree. this 3d nonsense is a passing fad, feel sorry for anyone who has bought a 3d tv!!
GreenFury1976 1 year ago 72
@GreenFury1976 I totally agree with u, I don't like this 3D effect on movies and I do believe they constitute a poor way of distracting audience from a crap story. However, it also true that innovations come from experimentation and even if the results so far are deadly horrible, the future developments might offer us something valuable. Benefit of the doubt?!
3edere 1 year ago
@GreenFury1976 That's what they said about the 'Talkies' back in 27
johnnythunders78 1 year ago
@johnnythunders78 Yeah, but the 'talkies' wasn't a completely retarded idea.
JTProud 1 year ago
2D would've been a nice option.
FPWDude 1 year ago 4
The thing is, his throwing out the 3D glasses to those who don't have them would only have fooled the ones who actually have 3D glasses, so his mentioning them among the people who could have been tricked (and, yes, I KNOW he was joking and didn't actually think anyone was fooled) made no sense. Or maybe, he realised this too, and that was part of the joke. It's always possible that I'm an idiot, as, after all, I am commenting on Youtube.
simeon94 1 year ago
@simeon94 Exactly what I thought: the only people that would attempt to grab them would be people who already had the glasses :)
ThrugsterMcThrug 1 year ago
@simeon94 That was the whole joke
stupidjunk878 1 year ago
Oh god he is just so right about everything he moans about.
Gothicgizzmo 1 year ago 2
he went to my school lol
hanros98 1 year ago
i have various 3d glasses but none of them work too well for this. is it because they're meant for the theatres? or is it this particular 3d video that isn't done too well?
reinabeina 1 year ago
@reinabeina Yeah I had the same problem. The picture is red and green kind of old school 3D isn't it? It reminds me of some rice bubble pictures I used to have.
sally0sally 1 year ago
@reinabeina It's a different method of 3-D, if you got the glasses from a cinema when seeing Avatar or something then they won't work. You need the cardboard ones with one green eye and one red one...
FerretBob 1 year ago
@FerretBob oh i see, ok thanks!
reinabeina 1 year ago
When "Journey to the Centre of the Earth" came out in 3D, I wanted to watch it just for the special effects. When I found out the stupid theatres here (in Phils.) wer screening the non-3D version, I decided, forget it. There isn't exactly a story to it anyway, the whole point was all the spectacular stuff you get to see (or in the case of the book, imagine) along the way.
SaBoTeUr2001 1 year ago
I want to yank out his one tooth in the bottom that sits too far back, its all i can look at when he talks.
Specialcookie246 1 year ago