- Thread Author
- #41
For me, I don't get all the 3D hype. It still is far from perfect and adds little relative to the higher cost of the ticket. I'd just as soon watch movies without 3D.
As an example, let's say there is a scene where the character(s) walk by a tree. Does that tree look round or flat? To me they still look relatively flat. I personally think this is mostly due to the cameras only being able to create 3D depth around what they are purposefully making 3D and the peripheral things become flat, whereas eyes still are able to maintain a degree of depth with peripheral vision. Couple that with the screen not being able to wrap around us in a more submersive fashion and it becomes - as you said - very gimmicky and cheap looking. I've noticed times when the green screen shots also cause actors to have an odd fuzziness around their edges at times.
These are some of the reasons I've avoided 3D TVs. The technology is very infantile, but maybe they can improve on it when 4k TVs become more the norm, or maybe 4k glasses so you get more of a wrap around peripheral that will help with the submersion. It might be interesting to see a 3D movie that is in a 360, or even 180, theater. Maybe that would help.
All that aside, I still liked much of the dialogue and plot Into Darkness. They've obviously set it up for future installments so we will see how this version progresses. I'm hoping they go more and more off a new script and new characters where they only do cameos and small bits from the previous Star Treks. Too much and it can become stale or the audience expects something very different from the actor portraying the newer version of the character (that is likely what many have or will have issue with in this current version...too much of a difference between the older version and this one in terms of who was portraying the villain, wrong look, wrong accent, etc.), whereas with small bits it can be a nice nod to the prior works.
