My problem with 3D in movies is that you can pretty much count on one hand the number of movies that not only were designed to have 3D from the get-go, but also had 3D effects that were worthwhile and added anything positive to the movie at all. That's less than 20%, as far as I can tell.
In every other instance, be it stupid post-processing or a movie designed to have 3D that just executed it poorly, it's merely a marketing ploy to get people to go see the movie in 3D and pay that extra surcharge and the movie makes more money, or it's an excuse to re-release an old movie with added 3D to get people to go see it again and make even more extra money!
But that's not the thing about 3D that irritates me the most; it's that 3D is so often used as some sort of catch-all addition to try and make a movie better or more appealing, and actual quality film-making is left at the wayside in exchange. Money is put towards adding these stupid 3D effects when they could instead be used on just making the movie better in general.
The same idea applies to CGI used in live-action movies these days. I studied this a lot last year in all my film and TV classes at uni, but it was brought fresh into my mind this week when I watched those Red Letter reviews of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Time and time again they sacrificed good direction, screen writing and all sorts of other things that actually make films good, just so that they could add all these flashy CG effects to make the movie look cool. In the end they had a lame, cool-looking movie that was so shallow a bird wouldn't bath in it.
So yes, to me 3D in almost every case is a gimmick. It's something that is used to try and make a movie more appealing, almost always in exchange for actually making the movie decent to begin with. Every time I see some shit movie with 3D some part of my screams out that the money spent on all that 3D tech should have been given to some budding screenwriter or director or whoever who is itching to make a movie that is actually good.
/end rant
In every other instance, be it stupid post-processing or a movie designed to have 3D that just executed it poorly, it's merely a marketing ploy to get people to go see the movie in 3D and pay that extra surcharge and the movie makes more money, or it's an excuse to re-release an old movie with added 3D to get people to go see it again and make even more extra money!
But that's not the thing about 3D that irritates me the most; it's that 3D is so often used as some sort of catch-all addition to try and make a movie better or more appealing, and actual quality film-making is left at the wayside in exchange. Money is put towards adding these stupid 3D effects when they could instead be used on just making the movie better in general.
The same idea applies to CGI used in live-action movies these days. I studied this a lot last year in all my film and TV classes at uni, but it was brought fresh into my mind this week when I watched those Red Letter reviews of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Time and time again they sacrificed good direction, screen writing and all sorts of other things that actually make films good, just so that they could add all these flashy CG effects to make the movie look cool. In the end they had a lame, cool-looking movie that was so shallow a bird wouldn't bath in it.
So yes, to me 3D in almost every case is a gimmick. It's something that is used to try and make a movie more appealing, almost always in exchange for actually making the movie decent to begin with. Every time I see some shit movie with 3D some part of my screams out that the money spent on all that 3D tech should have been given to some budding screenwriter or director or whoever who is itching to make a movie that is actually good.
/end rant
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
This lil' thing is thanks to Jarka!