I imagine a future where we pay a premium at the movies so that it will be in 3d and all sit watching the film with our 2d glasses on http://www.2d-glasses.com/
<http://www.2d-glasses.com/>I enjoyed the 3d in Thor the other night specifically because it was not overdone. It wasn't "a 3D movie" it was "a movie that happened to be shot in 3d" and I think there's an important difference there that directors will explore over time. On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Greg Keogh <g...@mira.net> wrote: > >No 3D glasses for me. Here's why: > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-3d-scam-reject-and-repeat/47724 > > > > Damn right, with some good links as well. I was dragged to see *Avatar*and > buy some 3-D glasses when it come out. I could tell already from the > advertising that the movie would sacrifice brains for looks. Hell was I > right! The 3-D is fabulous of course, but shockingly overdone to the point > of tedium. But how could Cameron spend all that money on the looks and leave > us with wooden acting, childish plot, pulp music and laughable dialogue? We > were then all excited about the upcoming “reimagining” of *Alice in > Wonderland* by Burton in 3-D, but as soon as we saw the previews, any idea > of paying for a ticket was discarded: Burton had turned a scintillating and > intellectual tale into a tedious bleak dirge overlayed with monotonous 3-D > effects. Lord help us if *The Hobbit* comes out in 3-D. My glasses have > been sitting in the bookshelf since Avatar and I’m wondering if they’ll ever > be used again – Greg >
