What? I don't know what you're getting at, but I agree with the OP. Let's put it this way:

OP: "This PB&J has waaay too much peanut butter"
Bumblethumper & bellpeppers: "It has peanut butter anyway"

The idea is to have a balance with the PB AND J, not A SHITTON OF PB, but some J so it's kinda there. Saying "it's a gimmick anyway" is just casting it aside.

 

Not that I hate things flying out - it's cool I just prefer depth. It makes me feel more in the film.

 

So... are we creamy peanut butter or chunky?

 

As far as I am concerned if you are gonna do something, don't do it half way:
If you want a color film, don't make it half-toned.
If you want sound, don't make it barely audible.
If you want special visual effects, make sure you don't see the rods and wires.
If you want hot food, you don't serve it luke-warm.
Why settle for cock-tease when you want to screw?

What exactly is the point of doing something if you aren't gonna take advantage of it?

Gimme some f*ck'n peanut butter! If I didn't want peanut butter, I wouldn't have made myself a damned peanut butter sandwich!

 

why pick on the last straw? Why not all the other straws?

I mean sure, you make a 3D film, you don't want something popping out the whole 2 hours. You don't do a sound mix and have a high pitched whine all the way through. But that doesn't mean you want to limit the sound to just bass. You don't shoot a film with all the action taking place in the background. You don't do it all in close-up either.

If you do it right, there's a time and a place for everything.

 

I did not know that

 

Well, it sounds like you're a peanut butter and jelly guy too.

Where Karhukjnsi's jelly is flat 2D and their Peanut Butter is bold 3D... it would seem that your jelly is just normal depth and your peanut butter is stuff-in-your-lap 3D.

Tron's 3D started off good, but because all they did was normal depth, things started looking flat again. Just keep pushing things into my face every so often and remind me it's in 3D.

 

I just like the 3D experience to be a thrill-ride. I want them to use the full range of what the technology is capable of to enhance the experience. That's what I'm paying for.

 

That's what I'm talking about, it's not just a peanut butter sandwich, it's supposed to be PB AND J, putting too much peanut butter without jelly is exactly what "Clash of the Gods" did. "HERE'S SOME TREE DEE, PEEPLE LIEK THREE DEEEEEE!"

I don't believe in going "all out", but rather, do it "right".

Two examples of going "all out" include: Avatar, and Monsters vs. Aliens. Both had been planning 3d in development, MvA even takes advantage of it off the get go with the paddle ball. MvA didn't do it "right" though, it didn't add anything to the film, it didn't make it an experience, it may as well've just been a 2D film. As you were saying with Tron, cool early on, then whatever, but they went "all out" to get this 3D going. The only one to pull it off well was Avatar, and they didn't do the "POP OUT AT THE PEOPLE" gimmick, instead: here's the screen, and here's BEYOND the screen.

 

Absolutely! I think we are on the same wavelength... but I think a 3D film should include *at least* some in-your-face shots, otherwise the human eyes gets used to it and the effect fades.

Just like Tron.

Kinda like a roller coaster: what fun would it be if is was only level with no loops?

As far as I am concerned, My Bloody Valentine and *especially* Final Destination got it right: plenty of plain old depth accented with some rather nice face shots.

 

Avatar definitely had a few scenes that popped out. Wasn't there that one scene with the guy putting the golfball towards the screen for no reason whatsover? Other than that they saved it for a handful of money shots, insane action scenes like Quaritch in the Amp suit jumping out of the exploding ship, and incidental stuff like the floating seeds. They also added some subtle touches like altering the point of convergence in the scene where Jake is seeing the world through his avatar for the first time.

The thing about 3D "beyond the screen" is that the further away your focus, the less depth perception you have. The moon is a lot closer to us than the stars, but we can't tell the difference just by looking, both are too far away. You probably get more mileage with stuff in front of the screen, even if it's just framing elements. It really helps to have a layering of middleground and foreground, which Avatar had in many shots. That helps push the depth, because it gives you a point of reference for just how far back the scene goes.

The problem with Clash of the Titans was their last-minute conversion couldn't make sense of the murky cinematography. I remember those shakey-cam scenes on the boat with all the ropes and things swinging about, and all of it clumsily floating around on different layers. It must've been a nightmare to digitally separate all those different parts, and it showed.

Yeah, I thought those two had some of the most effective 3D in recent times. And I think they clearly benefited from the added dimension; they would've been fairly mediocre without it.

3D seems to work better for certain genres of film than others. Horror has all manner of rusty knives and gruesome severed body-parts to taunt us with. Tron, with all its clean textureless surfaces, there isn't the same sense that you could reach out and touch it.

 

My god, I can't believe two letters in a film's title (or the lack of them) could mean so much to some people.

 

TRON could have had some decent scenes- exploding debris, more flying discs, etc. However, being such a clean environment they had enough problems providing a sense of scale with the mountains in the grid.

I never saw TITANS in 3D, but there are several scenes that would have been awesome. Hell, the Kraken's maw at the end would have been spectacular... but apparently they did a rush job.

Just like the trash that was THE LAST AIRBENDER. M. Night should be banned from Hollyweird.

It's that last minute rush job that will hurt 3D more than too many money shots. It's a sad state of affairs when Final Destination 4 has to be held up as a better example of 3D than TITANS.

And, I'll go on record as saying that the much heralded AVATAR didn't go far enough in some scenes. JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH did pretty good.

Can you explain to me this "gimmick" stuff, and how people seem to be creating some sort of pseudo intellectual / moral distinction of how the medium is somehow "beneath" them?

Want to see people go ballistic? Say "CHUG".

 

Wuzzat?

 

another thing that may ruin it is that how is sentinel prime alive when the fallen said the last prime is dead after OP died?