Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 12346 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: 3-D movies are already heading for the exit.

  1. #11
    No cause now there will be 3D with smells and tastes. Harold and Kumar's new Movie will prove it.

  2. Quote Originally Posted by arjue View Post

    Why on earth anyone would complain about an extra tool being available for film makers is beyond me. Just stop watching shit movies.
    That's the problem, they aren't using it right.

    I paid @ $25 to watch TRON in IMAX 3-D. Yeah, there were moments where it looked great, but there were also moments where I had to take off my glasses, because the picture was so dark and didn't look (yeah I know they admitted that part of the movie was not filmed for the format) 3-D at all. It seems to work well with animated films, but it doesn't seem to work well with movies using live actors.
    Last edited by gamevet; 18 Sep 2011 at 04:22 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Yoshi is going to be DEVASTATED.
    Totally. I've been to one movie in 2011, and it was Rango at the dollar theater for my daughter. This just soul crushing news.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by arjue View Post
    Why on earth anyone would complain about an extra tool being available for film makers is beyond me.
    Idiocy. Opaque does it, so there's supporting evidence.

  5. #15
    3D is going to be the future of all mutimedia despite financial losses

  6. A big problem is that animated movies are easiest to make 3D, but the animation audience (kiddies) don't really care and those movies don't get much bang for the buck. It should be used for adult animation (Avatar) and select action/horror movies.
    No gnus is good gnus.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Yoshi View Post
    Idiocy. Opaque does it, so there's supporting evidence.
    If movie makers had a device that threw pieces of shit at the audience would you say we should be happy they have that extra tool?

    No, you'd say "why the fuck are they wasting their time on something that throws shit at the audience? Just make good movies." Well, I would. You wouldn't because you like stupid gimmick bullshit.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by RoleTroll View Post
    A big problem is that animated movies are easiest to make 3D, but the animation audience (kiddies) don't really care and those movies don't get much bang for the buck. It should be used for adult animation (Avatar) and select action/horror movies.
    Bullcrap "How to Train your Dragon" made bank and that was 3D.

    http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=howtotrainyourdragon.htm

    How about Despicable Me or Toy Story 3?

    Oh hey look at the top 10 3D movies. Five of the Top 10 are Animated movies.

    http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=3d.htm
    I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Advocate View Post
    How about Despicable Me or Toy Story 3?
    Did you even read the Slate article that started this thread?

    Toy Story 3 opened with $110.3 million in ticket sales, making it one of the most successful films in history. Yet the Pixar movie's 3-D screenings contributed relatively little to its dazzling profits. Their per-theater revenue was at minus-5 percent compared to 2-D showings—the first time in recent history that 3-D had sunk below the break-even point on a film's first weekend.
    Toy Story 3 might have "made bank" by your standards, but not by real world how money works standards. If they had only done the 2D version they would have made a larger profit margin.

  10. I still haven't watched Toy Story 3, and it's been free to do so for a while now. And the only things I've seen in 3D were Thor (meh) and Transformers 3 (bleh). I haven't seen it done right yet, I suppose.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo