"Why Are All Movies Getting A 3D Remake?" or "How Many Times Can We Watch Titanic?"

Seil · 01-05-2012, 01:24 PM

I'm somewhat upset because I missed my chance to see The Lion King in 3-D. I had school and everything... but I did go see Tintin recently. (It's pretty great.) However, there were a few movie posters on the wall that greatly disturbed me at the theater.

Titanic 3-D and Beauty And The Beast 3-D and Star Wars I 3-D and oh gods why are all of these being remade, or remastered or whatever?

Titanic and Phantom Menace were alright, I guess, but what merits them being redone?

I'd rather go see the newer 3-D movies like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or the new Underworld or The Hobbit or wait, are they remaking the original Halloween? 'Cause I could stomach the idea of an old Star Wars 3D and Titanic 3D if we get a 3D Halloween.

CelesJessa · 01-05-2012, 01:33 PM

Because they like money.

Seil · 01-05-2012, 01:40 PM

Amake · 01-05-2012, 01:51 PM

I already wear glasses, so 3D to me is an extremely distracting gimmick. It works for movies that have no story to speak of and just are there to offer a particularly well-thought out visual experience, but otherwise it's the opposite of what I want to pay extra for. It's not like it automatically adds to the visuals like you'd expect maybe works in a special effects feast like Star Wars; at best it creates a whole new visual language that when you plan a movie around it can be very interesting, but when you throw 3D onto a movie that was made without any such considerations before the technology even existed I expect it will just fall flat. So to speak.

The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk · 01-05-2012, 04:37 PM

Welcome to Gimmickland, 2012!

After seeing a handful of films in 3d, me and my friends who I usually go to the cinema with have finally decided not to bother with any more 3d films ever again. They don't add anything to the experiance, they cost too much, and I honestly find myself not even noticing the 3d about half way through the movie, after finding it jarring and wierd to look at for the first half.

Fuck 3d!

Osterbaum · 01-05-2012, 06:07 PM

Fuck the 3D fad. It's the dumbest thing ever.

Aerozord · 01-05-2012, 06:19 PM

3D isn't just a fad, its a recuring one all the way back to the 50s. I bet you, the 3D effect, is probably just layers of 2D images

Magus · 01-05-2012, 08:16 PM

I am somewhat proud that the only 3D movie I've seen is the only one people say was even a half-way decent use of the technology: Avatar.

I sure has hell am not going to see Titanic 3D, hahaha. Like what is the point, just to further illustrate that people could give a shit about the love story and only went to see it originally to see that dude fall and hit the propeller? Now in glorious 3D?

Wait maybe I will see this again...

stefan · 01-05-2012, 08:19 PM

The trailers for these 3D remakes all showed before tintin.

they were excruciatingly painful to watch. Not even exaggerating, I nearly walked out of the theater because the trailers made me feel like I was getting stabbed in the eyes. (thankfully the 3D in tintin was far better done.)

post-process 3D doesn't fucking work. It looks fake and induces extreme eye strain.

Professor Smarmiarty · 01-05-2012, 10:33 PM

Where's 3D Last house on the left. I reckon that'll work real well. I got it playing in my head right now.
The whole movie is full of poking and jabbing and swirling around. Why didn't it invent 3D?

01-05-2012, 01:24 PM	#1
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	"Why Are All Movies Getting A 3D Remake?" or "How Many Times Can We Watch Titanic?" I'm somewhat upset because I missed my chance to see The Lion King in 3-D. I had school and everything... but I did go see Tintin recently. (It's pretty great.) However, there were a few movie posters on the wall that greatly disturbed me at the theater. Titanic 3-D and Beauty And The Beast 3-D and Star Wars I 3-D and oh gods why are all of these being remade, or remastered or whatever? Titanic and Phantom Menace were alright, I guess, but what merits them being redone? I'd rather go see the newer 3-D movies like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter or the new Underworld or The Hobbit or wait, are they remaking the original Halloween? 'Cause I could stomach the idea of an old Star Wars 3D and Titanic 3D if we get a 3D Halloween.

01-05-2012, 01:33 PM	#2
CelesJessa DA-DA-DA-DAA DAA DAA DA DA-DAAAAAA! Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Zanzibar Land Posts: 6,531	Because they like money. __________________

01-05-2012, 01:40 PM	#3
Seil Super stressed! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: British Columbia Posts: 8,081	Not far from reality.

01-05-2012, 01:51 PM	#4
Amake Keeper of the new Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A place without judgment Posts: 4,506	I already wear glasses, so 3D to me is an extremely distracting gimmick. It works for movies that have no story to speak of and just are there to offer a particularly well-thought out visual experience, but otherwise it's the opposite of what I want to pay extra for. It's not like it automatically adds to the visuals like you'd expect maybe works in a special effects feast like Star Wars; at best it creates a whole new visual language that when you plan a movie around it can be very interesting, but when you throw 3D onto a movie that was made without any such considerations before the technology even existed I expect it will just fall flat. So to speak. __________________ Hope insistent, trust implicit, love inherent, life immersed Last edited by Amake; 01-05-2012 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Total post + avatar moment.

01-05-2012, 06:07 PM	#6
Osterbaum The revolution will be memed! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: FIN Posts: 5,967	Fuck the 3D fad. It's the dumbest thing ever. __________________ D is for Dirty Commie!

01-05-2012, 06:19 PM	#7
Aerozord So we are clear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Former murder capital of the world Posts: 13,824	3D isn't just a fad, its a recuring one all the way back to the 50s. I bet you, the 3D effect, is probably just layers of 2D images __________________ "don't hate me for being a heterosexual white guy disparaging slacktivism, hate me for all those murders I've done."

01-05-2012, 08:16 PM	#8
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	I am somewhat proud that the only 3D movie I've seen is the only one people say was even a half-way decent use of the technology: Avatar. I sure has hell am not going to see Titanic 3D, hahaha. Like what is the point, just to further illustrate that people could give a shit about the love story and only went to see it originally to see that dude fall and hit the propeller? Now in glorious 3D? Wait maybe I will see this again... __________________ The Valiant Review

01-05-2012, 08:19 PM	#9
stefan Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 870	The trailers for these 3D remakes all showed before tintin. they were excruciatingly painful to watch. Not even exaggerating, I nearly walked out of the theater because the trailers made me feel like I was getting stabbed in the eyes. (thankfully the 3D in tintin was far better done.) post-process 3D doesn't fucking work. It looks fake and induces extreme eye strain.

01-05-2012, 10:33 PM	#10
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Where's 3D Last house on the left. I reckon that'll work real well. I got it playing in my head right now. The whole movie is full of poking and jabbing and swirling around. Why didn't it invent 3D?