Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
Personally, I don't like 3D because it seems like a trendy techno way to draw viewers to a film that can't stand on its own merits.
If TH is really such a good flick, it ought to be able to make it on the strength of the story and characterizations.
|
In the 50s it was commonly said that the best films were in black-and-white. That was, of course, an exaggeration. Looking back it is clear that
some films in black-and-white were better than
some films in colour, and some were not. But, on the whole, colour did enhance the cinematic experience sufficiently that a black-and-white film had to be
very much better to compete.
Earlier the same was said about sound films compared to silent films.
Most really popular 3D films are released both in standard flat format and in 3D to cater to both to those who honestly feel that 3D enhances sufficiently for the extra money and those who do not. Films that can’t stand on their own merits die quickly in both flat and 3D format, for example the very expensive
John Carter.
Personally, I feel that when I don’t like a film, one format or the other does not make a difference.
One film where I feel that 3D very much enhanced the cinematic experience was the film
Hugo.
To take another example of new technology, the first single-projector, wide-screen film was
Around the World in 80 Days, released in 1956, which was both a popular and a critical success.