Quote:
Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor
Hm.....I'm glad that, here in my country, we always have the option to see it on 2D with cheaper ticket-price. Does the audience in North America really have no choice other than to see it in 3D?  |
You can still see the film in 2D, but IMAX theatres will undoubtedly only feature the IMAX-3D version of the film. Pacific Rim was made for IMAX in mind, so it is quite annoying that I will now be forced to watch the film in converted 3D. (And, to be fair, digital shots are rendered in 3D rather than converted to 3D, that is why big monster moments in
Clash... still look good, while the moments with real people look bad.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
What it is translating to is simply racking up the ticket price with no additional value and often poorer quality visuals.
|
That is untrue...most of the time. The problem with many 3D films is that they are either not shot in 3D (converted after the fact) or they are not shot with 3D in mind (which is even worse). To give an example, 3D used in 'How To Train a Dragon' does not only help to convey the depth and power of the world the characters live in something 2D can does almost as well considering the eye can already account for onscreen depth cues quite well), but also the emotional power of the physicality of the characters interactions. The movements of Hiccup and Toothless, during their initial meetings, are all the more powerful due to the fact that we can see how they occupy and influence each others spaces (their interactions are all the more real and emotional specifically because their interactions "feel" more real). And that's not even discussing how the 3D influences the audiences perception of the character actions.
Suffice to say, 3D has a role in the artistic endeavor of film making, but it is often co-opted purely for business purposes (as is the case of
Pacific Rim).
(Of course, this is just my opinion on the potentiality of 3D, even if the potential is often never met.)