: Piranha 3D or Inception?

David Susilo
2010-08-22, 10:46 PM
I have a pair of free movie tickets. Should I watch Piranha 3D or Inception?

The reason I ask is that Inception is not in 3D and I have an 8ft 2.4:1 screen viewed from 8ft away in my dedicated theatre so I can just rent the BD when it's out whereas Piranha 3D... well, I don't have 3D projection.

So the question is whether it's still worth watching Piranha 3D?
As a point of reference, I enjoyed the stupidity of My Bloody Valentine 3D and the Piranha 3D supposedly to be more fun and campy than MBV 3D.

2010-08-23, 07:25 AM
Piranha 3D so far is sporting a (surprisingly) high Tomatometer rating of 81%. While Inception is a little higher (87%), I'd go with the 3D campiness of Piranha. I've seen Inception, and although I like it, you won't really miss much watching it from your dedicated HT setup.

David Susilo
2010-08-23, 03:18 PM
thanks, Tezster. Piranha 3D it is! :)

2010-08-23, 04:10 PM
Saw Piranha 3D Saturday. It's over the top on the gore meter. Funny though if you like that sort of thing.

David Susilo
2010-08-23, 04:49 PM
perfect then! How about bringing a 12 yo? She loves the Scream Trilogy, Resident Evil Trilogy (and will watch the 4th one in Sept), Buffy, Angel, My Bloody Valentine, Vampire Diaries and The Gates.

2010-08-26, 09:14 AM
I wouldn't. Hope it's not too late. The female nudity/sex might make you feel a bit uncomfortable.

David Susilo
2010-08-26, 03:28 PM
not too late at all.

I assume with this type of movie, the nudity and sex are gratuitous (unlike certain movies where the nudity/sex play an integral part of the movie).

2010-08-26, 06:25 PM
I went to see it on Tuesday. If you compare eye-candy to the fish, there is more eye-candy than piranhas.

The 3D is real bad, the movie itself is alright but I wouldn't pay the full price to see it. We had just seen the original from 1978 last week and I think I like it more than this one. Think of Porky meets deadly fish and you have Piranha. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being holy crappeth type of movie, I give it a 5.5 out of 10.

The 3D previews we had were even worse. Out of 6 films to come, only one was actually in 3D: Resident Evil. Looks interesting, if you are in that kind of movie. They had SAW the final chapter but it wasn't shown in 3D. All in all, it wasn't my best 3D experience this year. We are far from Despicable Me and How To Train Your Dragon!! :o

David Susilo
2010-08-26, 09:16 PM
Just got out of theatre. My goodness! That mvie will be better in 2D. The 3D is so artificial I'm having a super headache right now. Why can't they just use 2 cameras and record in true 3D instead of doing a hack-job conversion.

It is better than the 3D conversion of Clash of the Titans but it's really bad nevertheless.

The movie itself is fun. In 3D I give 5/10, in 2D I'm sure I can give 7/10. It's almost as fun as Plan 9 From Outer Space campiness.

2010-08-27, 10:54 AM
The 3D effect was like putting two mirrors in front of each other and looking at the refelction of your hand in it: it seems to go on for miles.

If this conversion was better than the Clash, thank god I didn't spend money to go see that one!!!

David Susilo
2010-08-27, 11:26 AM
Clash of the Titans essentially have a similar overexagerrated effect. However, the conversion company seems to try to make even more layers and (seemingly) using automatic conversion. In multiple crowd scenes (I usually sit at the end of the first 1/4 length of the theatre) some elements looks like going moving to and fro from one depth layer to the next. Not only it's distracting, it gave me headache. After about 45 minutes into the movie, I walked out and asked for a refund (which in turn they gave me the voucher which I used last night to watch Piranha 3D).

If conversion is the common "theme" of 3D movie production... please kill me. Just give me the 2D version so I don't get headaches.

PS: AFAIK, My Bloody Valentine 3D is also a conversion, but I didn't see any (what I call as) 3D Wobble (where an object going in and out unnaturally within a 3D plane).

2010-08-27, 02:41 PM
Didn't we talk about that in another thread? Now that companies are all going 3D, they seem to think people will go at all 3D so they just convert 2D to 3D. Much cheaper for them and they get all the profits from ticket buyers. True 3D however seems more expensive to do and more technical. However, it is that 3D that is the best to my eyes...or if the conversion is VERY well done like Alice in Wonderland earlier this year. I was afraid to go see it because I had read it was converted but really enjoyed it.

Having said that, the Piranha movie is what over the top gore fest movies should be. I think it would've been better in 2D for me because I saw so many distractions in the movie it wasn't funny. My wife didn't but of course, she isn't as picky as I am...;)

David Susilo
2010-08-27, 03:27 PM
did we? I can't remember. My apology if I'm repeating the other thread.

Alice in Wonderland is not a true conversion, per-se, because the action were recorded on green screen so any actor is already separated on their own 3D plane and the digital-sets are created around the actors. So in the case of AiW, the 2D are just recorded as part of the 3D element.

Howeer, in CotT and Piranha3D, the entire thing was recorded in 2D and using a software, certain areas of the frame are being pulled out and pushed in to create the 3D world.

2010-08-27, 10:31 PM
I enjoyed the original from my childhood so I will see this at some point... at home, on my plasma, in 2D.

Inception was very good, I thought. I only went because we were given free passes. Imaginative and somewhat original.

David Susilo
2010-11-22, 07:22 PM
I finally watched Inception. Alas, for something that started as an amazing movie, the ending is predictable about halfway through the movie :( Amazing visuals, especially on my 9ft screen viewed from 8ft away, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed.