Originally Posted by jeffersbnl:
“I get where you're coming from but disagree- especially in the case of 'retrofitted' 3D films- they've performed poorly in cinemas and (I understand) don't look particularly impressive. Its not quite on the level of 'colourising' but its in that direction.
I've seen a handful of 3D films in the cinema and don't feel I'd have missed much seeing them in 2D- for a start the colour is poorer and the brightness is greatly reduced. I don't feel I'm missing out when I watch them at home, where as I wouldn't like to see a film cropped to 16:9 or (previously) 4:3 if at all possible.”
I'm not a fan of 2-D to 3-D conversions, either, but I'm told the technology is improving, even though many filmmakers are now choosing to shoot in 3-D rather than 'add it on' in post-production. Doomsayers have been heralding the death of 3-D for about five years now, and they use the fact that many people are choosing to see films in 2-D. The problem is twofold:
1. The surcharge for 3-D films is completely self-defeating.
2. The use of 'subtle' 3-D (favoured by the likes of James Cameron) means that people are sitting in their cinema seat, having paid the premium, wondering why the movie is in 3-D at all, since it makes no difference whatsoever. Many filmmakers have no clue how to integrate meaningful 3-D composition into a strong narrative. Rather than struggling NOT to draw attention to the 3-D, filmmakers should be doing the exact opposite, since that's what the public has paid their money to see. Unfortunately, once an audience member has seen one 'subtle' 3-D film, they think they're ALL like that, and they just don't bother going to see anymore.
The reports of 3-D's imminent demise are, of course, hugely exaggerated (as these things are wont to be!). Take a look at the following 3-D filmography, which has just undergone a massive update. Take a look at the list of upcoming 3-D films (all of them in various stages of development), and you'll see a VERY healthy slate of films from all over the world, testament to the health and vitality of 3-D beyond US borders:
3-D Filmography (1922 - Present Day)
As for whether I should list them here or not, the fact is that these films DO exist in 3-D versions, regardless of how the format was achieved. And it's the case that they can't be screened on 'regular' TV in their original form. So, I just want to let people know what they're 'missing' when they sit down to one of these films, which allows them to choose whether or not they'd like to waste their time on such presentations.
Apologies for the length of my response. I'm clearly going through a verbose period!
Nurse, the screens!!