No 3D For New Batman Film - Turning Point For Hollywood?

[stampeder]

L.A. Times columnist:

I don't want to go over the usual pro- and anti-3D arguments here, because many of us have done so many times over the course of the year. But I do wonder whether the tide is turning. For it's only a few weeks since Warner Bros abandoned plans to add a post-production 3D fix to Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part I. Presumably stung by the size of the criticism it attracted for its fairly terrible Clash Of The Titans 3D bolt-on, Warner Bros decided not to risk such a backlash again. And now - and this is something I'm coming to shortly - it's agreed that 2D is the way forward for the next Batman film too.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/6608...ing_point.html

Is the 3D tide turning? Is it a fad that is running it's course?

[eljay]

I was happy to read on the weekend that Nolan had decided to stick to HD and IMAX cameras instead of opting for the gimmickry of 3D.

[hugh]

I think 3D has a place so I am hesitant to call it a fad or gimmickry but its probably best used for a limited selection of movies, not everyone!

[Tezster]

3D works well for some movies, and not at all for others, and I think that's how the trend (if you can call it that) will continue.

[talljak]

Thank you Hollywood! Some movies need to focus on story and not things popping out of the screen.

[AFF]

For me I think 3D is only for animated movies(Pixar type). I don't really care for the rest done in 3D

[Khorn]

3D is great for those who want it. I really don't care as long as they continue to offer the movies in 2D as well and the quality doesn't suffer.

[reidw]

Not sure if its a turning point yet but I think AFF may have it right. 3D is great for animations including mixed situations such as Avatar but it is not for all film genres. I think most of directors and producers know this instinctively except perhaps for one well known Canadian who has gone overboard in his predictions about 3D.

Where this leaves the TV set manufacturers is the next question. I have been concerned from the start that they've been too quick to get on the 3D bandwagon and that this could mean one of the big Asian electronics giants is going to suffer a big crash.

In any case I'll make the prediction now that 2011 is going to be the crucial year for 3D. Let's check back on Nov. 1, 2011 to see where things stand.

[David Susilo]

no more 3D.... yeah!!!!!!

[reidw]

David! That's not very nice!

[David Susilo]

allow me to rephrase... "no more CRAPPY 3D" (I actually like 3D, just not the frame sequential system, and also not liking the "hmm the movie is bad, let's make it 3D to make it --better--" approach)

[Steve604]

Originally Posted by David Susilo

allow me to rephrase... "no more CRAPPY 3D" (I actually like 3D, just not the frame sequential system, and also not liking the "hmm the movie is bad, let's make it 3D to make it --better--" approach)

completely agree, 3d to give the picture depth is 1 thing, 3D as a gimmick, not a fan

[jimbo42]

I think it is more so people just can't pay that extra cash for a 3D movie and it's showing in box office receipts ? You would never think the economy is so bad in the US with people out of work, losing there homes etc.. and corporations continuing to raise rates on everything, putting up ticket prices and charging extra for 3D movies is just a kick in the teeth to most consumers. I think its economics coming into play here.

[audacity]

I don't know about you guys, but when I'm watching a 3D movie it just seems so... layered. As in you see a 2D background where select items are in different "foreground layers'. It doesn't look good at all, especially when I'm looking at it thinking "background layer, foreground layer..."

[David Susilo]

^^^ that always the tell-tale sign of faked-3D (movies converted to 3D after the fact) such as Piranha 3D and My Bloody Valentine 3D.

Movies shots in 3D in its entirety will not have that layered effect.