Comments on: Lindelof: Star Trek In 3D

By: Robert Clements

Robert Clements — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:38:00 +0000

Don’t know where you see films but round these parts, studios actively work to prevent choice when they decide to gouge the public with 3D. The number of 2D screenings is usually limited, particularly at popular timeslots

By: towergrove

towergrove — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 02:12:00 +0000

I think plenty of money is still being made on 3D it’s here to stay. Don’t like it, don’t go see it in 3D. Isn’t choice wonderful!

By: Robert Clements

Robert Clements — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:28:00 +0000

How can you sacrifice story quality when there wasn’t any story quality in the first place?

By: Kang the Unbalanced

Kang the Unbalanced — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:15:00 +0000

I don’t know. Sir Ridley Motherf$^&ing Scott is the third actual filmmaker to decide that they liked 3D. Of course he, like Martin Scorsese and James Cameron, actually SHOT in 3D, instead of this upconversion bullshit. I haven’t seen Prometheus yet, but both Cameron and Scorsese use 3D like a visual tool to add depth and detail to their films– an enhancement rather than a gimmick. It shows in the quality of their work.
Of course they also could be bothered to learn how to shoot in 3D, and shoot FOR the 3D, instead of this “oh, I can just shoot any old way I want and the computers’ll fix it” attitude that JJ and so many others have. The history on conversions is very spotty; a lot of turds for every peanut. But audiences, especially overseas audiences, just eat them up.
I don’t think 3D’s going away so soon this time. But I have a news flash for Mr. Abrams: Lense flares look even shittier in 3D.

By: Ireland

Ireland — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:15:00 +0000

$$$ changed their minds. Nothing else.

By: OIO

OIO — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:43:00 +0000

Isn’t the “allure” of 3D (mainly 8 year old kids) wearing off now?