Hi, i saw the above film last and came out disappointed,not because of the film, that was very good.It was the 3D effects , i was expecting a lot more.At times if you watched the film minus glasses it looked like a normal film not like the 2 image ghost type of 3d films. At times it gave the picture more depth but that was it. I paid an extra £15 for this and have come out feeling a bit ripped off to be honest. When someone says 3D to me i expect things to be flying out the screen etc but there was nothing.Anybody else feel this way
An extra £15 for 3d!!!! You need to change your cinema. To comment on your point though the 3d in toy story 3 wasnt that impressive, I've seen films use it better such as the animated Christmas carol last year. When I watched toy story 3 I thought the most impressive 3d bit was in the pre film adverts, the one for the Sony 3d TVS, that advert looks amazing in 3d and have never understood why they always show it on itv on non 3d tvs
You paid £15 extra for 3D??? I thought it was pretty good 3d, fairly subtle and not overdone - I'm not a fan of randomly waving things out of the screen, it just seems wrong in 2D. The only problem with 3D is the brightness issue, and it did look a bit dim and dull to me, although other cinemas might boost the brightness a bit. Of course, the film itself was fantastic, and I have to say it didn't really gain much from the 3D, but at the same time the 3D effect was quite a lot better than the 3D adverts that played before. I don't know if you would have had the same ones, but there were a few advertising 3D televisions with people playing football, rugby, etc. that just looked aweful - they were perfect examples of 3D done badly (I think they were converted to 3D rather than filmed natively, you could see the different 'layers' of depth and it was really distracting. Compared to that the 3D in the film seemed a lot more natural and much less intrusive, which in my opinion is a lot better than being constantly told "LOOK! THIS FILM IS IN 3D!!!!!" with bits flying out of the screen all the time. But at the end of the day the film wouldn't have lost anything by being in boring old 2D.
When i say i paid £15 ,it was 15 for the whole family ,5 of us and we had to pay 80p for a pair of glasses each which was a bit of a rip off,last 3D film i saw they provided them
Ah, that's not so bad then. I had to buy my glasses too, really annoying because they were free at the last one I saw, too. Although they did ask for them back afterwards then. The didn't get them, but they did ask.
Maybe I'm broken, but the Toy Story films have never really 'clicked' with me. I begrudgingly sat through the first one, and turned the second off less than half way through. Now - Wall.E, The Incredibles and Monster's Inc? **** yeah.
I cba with the whole 3D thing tbh. If I can avoid seeing a movie in 3D I will. I thought Avatar was neat at times, but the fact that the film was made for 3D means there's more depth to the film, even without the 3D glasses going on.
I'd rather watch 3D like it's done in TS3 - used to enhance the feel of the film rather than being a blatant "ooh, look at this really long pole COMING AT YOU FROM T3H SCREEN!!!11". Their other films are totally awesome... But you don't like Toy Story? Wut? I can't even...
I know, I know. Maybe my mother didn't love me enough or something. Every time I tell somebody I don't like the Toy Story franchise, I just get this look like I'm sub-human or something.
3D just isn't what it used to be. As a Kid 3D seemed awesome now it just looks like crap. The last film I saw in 3D was Final destination. I was expecting the film to be total crap and I was correct the only reason me and my friends went to watch was to waste some time. But the 3D was awful the best part was when a Plaster floated past the screen in the swimming pool scene. Come to think of it that 3D was so realistic it was more scary than the entire film.
3D = Crappy fad that adds little to nothing to films not specifically designed to take advantage of it. It's a attempt by studios to squeeze even more cash from punters, not to mention the film looks rubbish because the polarizing filters cut out 30% of the colour range. In short, 3D = crap /thread
I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D and just ended up taking off my glasses constantly, I found if anything it just distracted me from actually watching the film. It felt like that for the 3D stuff to work certain scenes had been designed in a very specific way for the extra dimension to have an impact. That said I saw a 3D film about the Space Station at the Science Museum in London and that was amazing, I couldn't tell you what was different but I loved the 3D in that
All 3D films have 2D showings somewhere. Not every cinema has been retrofitted with 3D equipment (thank god).
I'm yet to see a credible 3d-effect. And even if they got it right, we still appear to be sooooo far from actually making the movie experience any better by having the third dimension in the mix. Also I'm still waiting to see a 3D-film that I actually like as-a-film. I watched Avatar recently in 2D and it was just as rubbish as I'd expected. Or maybe not rubbish, but average is the best I can call it. Yet it has a high rating of 8,3/10 in imdb, so clearly SOME people think the 3D effects really improve the movie.
Saw Avatar in 3D and thought the 3Dness added absolutely nothing to the film, in fact, if anything, it detracted from it. As someone above has already mentioned, the 3D adverts before Avatar had a more impressive use of 3D. I won't be seeing any other movies in 3D and hope this fad fizzles out!
Also in 2D the shakycam looks annoying. I bet it adds to the 3D effect, as the constant, slight change of angle makes the depth more visible. In 2D it just causes travel sickness.
