3D Why don't filmmakers take advantage of the 3D Process? (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Anstey]

Good post. Demanding that 3D effects be "in your face" is like demanding that stereo audio use the kind of ping pong effects that were popular in its early days. It's not realistic.

A complete and total mischaracterization of what has been discussed in this thread. The discussion was how nothing is in front of the screen so what is the point? To make every movie look like you are wearing a picture frame in front of your face ala Peter Griffin? A well shot 2D movie gives the appearance of depth behind the screen so all 3D is doing right now is charging you extra for the inconvenience of wearing glasses that dim the picture just so you can get back what they took away due to shoddy film making. If a movie specifically advertises "Presented in full mind-blowing 7.1 surround sound" and they charge extra for it, you don't really expect a mono soundtrack. There is nothing wrong with a mono soundtrack, just don't advertise it as 7.1 and charge extra for it just because there happen to be 7.1 speakers in the theater.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't mind an off the screen effect from time to time. But I think it should be saved for an effective moment in the story, ie Hitchcocks only off the screen effect in Dial M For Murder is when Grace Kelly's hand reaches back toward the camera, almost as though reaching out to the audience for help, then she finds the scissors. For me over use of the off the screen effect gives me a headache. Doug