As some of you may know, Roger Ebert has been on kind of a crusade against the recent upswing in 3D movies. He's got a
blog post recently about how dim many movies are these days, even if they are 2D.
Apparently, there's a reason for that. I had Friday off, and was in the mood to watch a movie at the theater. However, there was nothing new out that I wanted to see, so I wavered between watching Fast Five and Thor again, and decided on Thor. It was my third time watching it, but only the first time in 2D. It's amazing to me how much better the picture was in 2D. It was brighter, clearer, and less-headache-inducing than the 3D version. The effects that they added to the 3D version were not worth it in the slightest.
There's also the news that in the States at least, the new Pirates movie did better on 2D screens than 3D. Apparently other 3D releases aren't doing so well either:
Hollywood Starts to Worry as 3-D Fizzles in US.
I have a question for folks who've been to more 3D movies than I have: are there movies where the 3D special effects are worth it? I've heard that the Avatar effects were worth it, but I never saw that in theater and in fact have only seen bits and pieces of it as I channel-hop. The last 3D movie before Thor I saw I believe was the
Muppets 3D thing at Walt Disney World, which actually is worth it.
This entry was originally posted at
http://beck-liz.dreamwidth.org/107340.html. You may comment there using OpenID, or you may comment here.
have commented there.