River ,'Trash'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
No. The most amazing 3D movie I've seen might be Coraline, and watching it in 2D is fine.
tommyrot is right. Both in that Coraline was one of the best 3D movies out there, and that it didn't lose anything when being viewed in 2D.
I am so tired of movies being slapped with 3D effects. But it looks like studios are still releasing both 2D and 3D versions of new movies.
In How to Train Your Dragon, I could see where they would have used the 3D, but it still looked impressive in 2D, and the rest of it was good enough.
Although I did see Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3D in the theater, and there's a scene where someone passes a joint to someone, and it looks like this hand with the joint is coming right out of the screen into the audience. That wouldn't have been funny in 2D.
So run to your nearest 3D movie for your stoner humor, maybe?
The 3-D scenic photography was the only redeeming feature of My Bloody Valentine, so there are a few movies out there that weren't worth seeing without it. And Coraline was an amazingly effective use of the technology, though I'm sure it would be an enjoyable viewing experience without.
It's more ~*authentic*~.
If he was that worried about authenticity, re-spell the character's names in the script to match the pronunciation on the show. Sokka=Saka, Iroh=Airo, etc. (Not sure how to re-spell Aang's name as I'm only familiar with the romanization of Japanese.) People may look funny at the credits, but at least it wouldn't change the movie experience itself.
Sincere question to the dimensionally capable amongst us...does seeing a movie in 3D really add so much to the viewing experience that you would NOT see the same movie in 2D?
I haven't seen any movies in 3D because the gf has the same problems you do with 3D movies. I do recall reading an article where the writer had the same problem and suggested modifying the glasses so people who have issues with 3D can still see movies with their 3D-capable friends.
Different article, but same idea: [link]
I will say that I could never see the old-school 3-D, could never see those "magic pictures," etc., since I generally only look out of one eye at a time, but I can see the new-style 3-D. For what that's worth.
I think pretty much the ONLY reason to see Avatar is the 3D effects. Without the experience of being IN that world, I think the experience would be much less. No other 3D movie has seemed enhanced by the effect to me.
I generally only look out of one eye at a time
This is precisely my issue, monocular vision. But I'm pretty sure the new 3D is the same for me. Then again, I'm not actually interested in shelling out to test the theory...so I could be wrong.
I can see out of both eyes, just don't generally. So I was pleasantly surprised when a friend dragged me to a 3-D movie, and it worked.
Movies that are shot in 2D and then converted generally look like crap. A movie that was intended to be 3D from the beginning, I might make more of an effort to see in theatres rather than catching up on DVD.