Mouth-Watering, Eye-Popping, Incredible 3-D

By
on

I can’t wait to continue NOT seeing any of these films in 3-D during 2011:

Also in Cartoon Brew...

  • Scooby-Doo Performs
    on Fox News

    scoobyfox

  • Meet the First
    (Stone Age)
    Animators

    cave-animation

  • “Dorothy Of Oz”
    trailer

  • Matt

    I heard one of the significant factors behind the 3D trend is the difficulty in making bootleg copies. Makes sense.

  • http://www.bishopanimation.com FloydBishop

    Provided both of your eyes work, you see in 3D all the time. Why shouldn’t cinema try to replicate that experience?

    What this video shows is marketing run amok.

    • Isaac

      To me, stereoscopic 3D adds a “fake” feeling that isn’t there in plain old films. When I watch an ordinary film I don’t get the feeling that I should be able to see the objects from different angles if I move, but when it’s in 3D I subconsciously expect the objects to have real depth of field and to be visible from different angles. When they don’t, it creates an odd feeling. Plus, I don’t have to wear any special glasses to watch a regular movie.

  • http://beesbuzz.biz/ fluffy

    I like my 3D TV for gaming, but yeah most of the 3D movies I’ve seen have been horrible eye-strains. Avatar did benefit from 3D (since everything else was completely flat otherwise, hurr hurr), and in Toy Story 3 and Up the 3D was at least unobtrusive, but even then I still had to close one eye during all the trailers.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j76cyRZRBcs Maxie

    I’ve heard somewhere that companies seem to be realising that 3D isn’t really important, so less 3D films will be produced. By the way, remember what we said – the negativity from this site gets a bit tiring.

    • Jeff H

      Who’s “we”? I think (well, we think — me, my shadow and my reflection) the negativity is funny as hell. Carry on!

    • Iritscen

      When some trend is annoying just about all of us, I don’t think anyone would object to the Brew pointing it out. For me, 3D doesn’t really add to the movie, so it’s not worth the extra money. My vision seems to adjust after several minutes so that I don’t notice the effect anymore.

    • http://www.segaltoons.com Steve Segal

      3D isn’t important, but it still attracts audiences. Chaplin felt dialog was an unnecessary intrusion, Gregg Toland didn’t like color photography. But audiences wanted those and informed the theaters with their wallets. 3D is probably the most controversial of these enhancements since it requires eye-wear and alters the color and brightness of the image. Many directors use it for gratuitous effects (not to mention the overbearing trailers) but many use it skillfully. More 3D films are scheduled for release in 2011 than previous years, we’ll have to wait and see if it’s a fad or a lasting trend.

    • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

      “…the negativity from this site gets a bit tiring”?

      It’s one of the main attractions of the BREW. Negativity cheers me up.

  • http://carolwyatt.blogspot.com Carol

    The studios are marketing this so they can make more money at the box office off of 3D technology. It’s working.
    They are trying to convince us that we LOVE it!!!

    As a person who has worn glasses all of her life, I find wearing TWO pairs of glasses redundant.
    As I was watching TRON in Amazing 3D!, I was fiddling with my glasses and trying to keep the glare out of my side vision, throughout the film. I could not focus. Colors were distorted. I had a headache at the end.
    I paid more for 3D: $15.25 vs. $11.75

    • A.C.

      Actually Carol, before I read your comment that was the exact one I was referring to. I saw the movie in quadruple-vision the entire time.

  • http://www.leonanimationstudio.com Reynaldo

    WOW! That’s a 3D Film I’d love to see! 3D in 3D! But seriously, don’t give any ideas to the guys who make parody films like Vampires Suck and Epic Movie.

  • PeteR

    Where’s Picasso when we need him?

  • Steve M.

    Too much 3D.

  • Gobo

    Will you seek out those movies in 2D, or just ignore them out of spite?

    For myself, I see movies in 3D if I think the price is justified. I won’t spend $16 on a movie when I can see it in 2D for less than ten bucks, but if I can see a visual treat like TRON for less than $12, it’s 100% worthwhile. TANGLED in 3D? Great movie, but not worth the upcharge. I generally enjoy the extra razzle-dazzle and visual spectacle, and Disney’s 3D is nearly always well done.

    • purin

      In a world of $12 regular tickets, I don’t mind paying a $10 matinee price for 3D. It seems that now you’re able to pay matinee prices for 3D movies. That wasn’t available earlier last year.

  • Michael F.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if 3D dies out real soon; this is primarily due to how so many films that are made in 3D are made that way just to try and get people to see films that are probably trash (Alpha and Omega, anyone?)

  • Phil

    Only 3 Dimentions? Yawn!

    • Steve Cooper

      Yeah I can’t wait for “Analog feeling, time bending, tooth snapping, smellarounding, event horizoning, singularity smashing 5D!”

  • Chelsea

    “If you can’t make it good, Make it 3D”

  • Chris

    I don’t know, I’m pleased that people are shelling out $ to see movies in 3D. It puts money into a technology that could be very cool in the future. Although 3D at present isn’t all that fantastical, I’m looking forward to the development of better virtual reality, holograms, and the like. Y’know, you just have to appreciate it for what it is; I agree that technology does very little to enhance the quality of a narrative and can even be distracting, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold value to the person who appreciates novelty.

    • Cyle

      I don’t think the difference in ticket price is funding future technology like holograms. It might get better projectors installed in theaters, but other than that, it doesn’t seem to be supporting any further innovation.

  • A.C.

    I can’t even see 3-d because of my vision problems. :-(

  • http://www.sweetposer.tk/urbmn/ Cameron A.

    These voiceover men are amateurs at selling 3D. Now Dr. Tongue, there’s a man who knew what 3D was all about.

    Evil House of Pancakes…in 3D! Now that’s mouth-watering! Awooo!!!

  • James Cimarusti

    I’m partial to “Dr. Tongue’s 3-D House of Slave Chicks” myself ;)

  • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

    Robotnik’s private parts, swingin’ at you in 3D!

  • The Scarlet Pumpernickel

    Someone bring Jack L. Warner back from the dead and put him again at the chair of Time Warner, please.

    • s.w.a.c.

      At least Jack L. Warner knew how to make a *good* 3D film (ie. the Vincent Price/Andre de Toth House of Wax).

      Which makes me wonder why no one’s bothered to reissue any of the classic 3D titles of the ’50s using the new technology? I’d love to see a proper presentation of, say, Dial M for Murder. At least we got that old Donald Duck/Chip ‘n’ Dale 3D short before one of the earlier Disney digital 3D releases.

  • http://2dwannabe.blogspot.com robcat2075

    Complainers, all.

    For me, one of the classic parts of the 3D movie-going experience is the overweight guy with a comb-over in the ticket line loudly asserting that that the glasses are un-cool.

    The whole 3D flap only reinforces my impression that most of our population is incapable of dealing with minor detours from the routine.

    People who work all day under greenish fluorescent lights, on an over-blue monitor, at jobs they drove to in cars with purple-tinted windows, wearing orange sunglasses suddenly become VERY discerning consumers regarding the optics of… “Piranha 3D”.

    It’s like hearing the princess complain there’s a pea under her mattress.

  • Anon

    I wish real life was 3D.

  • Pablo

    It’s funny how is the same guy who says all the phrases.

    In 3D!

  • irin

    2D is much better IMO.

  • Jeannie

    I like 3D when it’s well done. It’s like any new technology that way.

    I loved How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and IMAX. That was such a visual treat, but I didn’t think it was necessary to watch Toy Story 3 or Tangled in 3D because I think the effort was halfhearted. It didn’t actually look any different between the two versions because Disney Pixar didn’t push the stereoscopic plane the way they could have. It was a waste of money. I think with HTTYD they really used the 3D to tell the story. Dreamworks used it intelligently and I loved it.

    I still don’t understand this movement to be completely against 3D all the time. It can be done well and it can be done badly, that’s all. At least we have the option to choose which version we want to see at the theater. No big.