Alice was an ok movie, i think it was hyped up to be more than it was though~

would the sketch be semi-colored? OO:

not terribly intricate but something along these lines

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3509491
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3509450

Awwwess okaaay~

cant wait till you open a slot so i can get one that looks like this:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2916864/

;P <33

full color is $50 ^^;

I can take one but can't guarantee it until after FWA

what's that? o:

Furry Weekend Atlanta. It's the 25th through the 28th and fun as all getout. Now I can try to squeeze your commission in before then but no guarantees

Oh i see~
its okies then, i'll just wait until its over. im very picky when it comes to squeezing things in, and i'd prefer if you were able to take your time.. hehehe ;)
it would include a bg as well right?

Bg's are another $10, any other questions involving commissions please note me :3

Alice was good. Not "OH GOD EPIC" good. But I enjoyed it, and would watch it again. The novelty of 3D was lost on me, though .-. the preview for How to Train Your dragon was more impressive.

How to train your dragon looks just as mediocre...

^^;

Hey, I wanna see it, so don't worry about hurting my feelings with an opinion XD I think it looks vaguely entertaining o3o

You know my view. 3D is a gimmick ... a potentially clever gimmick, no doubt, which can be used effectively to add layers to a good movie ... but a gimmick nonetheless, designed to draw people to the theaters rather than waiting for DVD or download.

The line that Katzenberg and the rest of the 3D proponents keep peddling about "adding a new layer to storytelling, an extra storytelling tool" is bullshit. Consider it this way: Can you think of any movie where the plot would suffer because it were viewed in 2D rather than 3D? Not really. It may enhance the viewing experience, but it doesn't affect the storytelling at all.

So yeah, interesting tool in the toolbox, but I don't think as revolutionary as its purveyors want us to believe, and I'm not a huge fan of it myself.

lol i think we had this conversation. I dunno I think i'm just moreso perplexed at just how much more hype it keeps getting and getting

Very much agreed. 3D, at its heart, is a gimmick. It CAN add a sharpness and clarity to a movie that's really nice, but it also tempts directors into adding gratuitous 3D tricks.

But its main use is simply giving people a reason to pay to see movies in a theatre versus waiting for the DVD. As long as it's accomplishing that, it'll be used quite a bit :)

You saw it WITHOUT ME?!

*shun*

And yes 3D did not make it any better.

*re-shuns*

You saw it without me *Mega shun* ;___;

I plan to go again tho!! D:

The movie as a whole was incredible, fantastic and absoluety wonderful.

The characters were very expressive and they all had something that made them differ a lot from each other.

Story-wise it was a little predictable, even though there were moments that would flip this prediction making it even more awesome than before but with the same ending.

Now, for the acting...everyone was perfect, perfect, POIFECT.

But Alice...UGH! Her acting was so flat and she was bored the whole time like saying "Meh, let's get this shit over with ASAP, I want some fried chikin covered with chocolate and sprinkles when I get up slurpyslurpyslurp."

Really, she was awfull.

Also, I would so have stayed in Wonderland, because srsly, wtf? you just slayed a dragon, mounted on top of a fluffy monster that wanted to eat you up and kill you with it's poison claws, rode on top of a dog as well as if you were a goddamn flea, saved the whole motherfucking kingdom AND "engaged" the Red Queen with her lovely Stayne who wants to kill her. Why the fucking jelly hell would you want to leave?

AT LEAST take some of the credit and become a paladin or something and enjoy Wonderland for a few years before you return to your world, that is if you want to return...

But anyways, it's from Tim Burton and it's rated A even if there is some graphic violence here and there...and since it's from said creator I still wanna buy it on DVD and have sex with the box even if it means to cut my dick with the plastic of the box or the CD.

Oh, and good luck with your comic.

As I said, it's a mediocre film with fine visuals. Much like Avatar. nothing spectacular, but cute. Tim Burton needs to be kept in check by decent writers or he will suffer the same fate as George Lucas. Very cutely imagined, but since they didn't take their time telling the story and having you get to know the characters a bit better, the characters were far more flat than the visuals.

Johnny Depp as Ronald McDonald didn't impress me at all. The whole role was centered around his acting and not around the character which pisses me off to no end. Johnny is a spectacular actor who can play the role of the character, but once the role is made to fit around the actor then the movie starts to suffer and everyone has to start reacting to the actor including the story, and the whole movie suffers.

I agree absolutely.

I didn't watch Avatar because I knew it wasn't worth it, it was just visually awesome but story-wise very, very predicable.

I hope Tim Burton doesn't screw up on Frankenweenie or Dark Shadows since these are creations of himself.

May I add that Tim Burton didn't write Alice in Wonderland?

Part of the problem with Alice is that it was filmed in 2D and the 3D was added in post production. That is certainly a case of Doing It Wrong. It actually looks better in 2D. That doesn't help the movie feeling rushed and disconnected and jumpy in places like whole scenes were left on the cutting room floor with no compensation, but that's something else entirely. Just presentation-wise, the film should not have been screened in 3D.

Avatar, on the other hand, was filmed in 3D and looks great for it. I would say the film should be seen in 3D and not 2D because they took (almost) full advantage of it, it's clearly how it was intended to be seen, and it's visually stunning (not that it makes up for the movie itself being a terrible cliche-storm). However, even here the director made some mistakes because he was still thinking in 2D filmmaking terms. You CAN NOT give preferential focus to certain people / creatures / objects in a 3D picture! You just can't! That works in 2D, not in 3D. People will strain to see what is fuzzed out and they will get a fucking headache like nothing else. In a 3D picture, the WHOLE PICTURE needs to be in focus, at all times. Period! Trust that people will focus where they need to.

How To Train Your Dragon looks like another mediocre cliche storm, sure the cat-dragon-thing is cute but the story is clearly ripped off wholesale. Legend of the Guardians looks awesome though and so does Tron, and both of those I can see working extremely well in 3D.

Well the whole point was.. I've seen Avatar in 3d.. and it was still pretty.. non amazing. I wasn't really swept away by the 3d unfortunately.

3D films as they stand presently are a pretty poor standin for the no-glasses-required holography we all really want.

lol holograms wouldnt' sweep me away either. It's all neat, but very... shallow. heehee sorry, I'm very oldschool..

* licks your feet*

*snickers and wiggles his toes*

Let's talk badges. I'll note you. :3

For people who will say it, because they always do (and already have here), 3D films are not a gimmick. Look up the definition of gimmick, and you'll find that does not apply to 3D films. Somebody might not enjoy the experience (as you seem not to) and might even consider it to be harmful to considering the content of the story, but 3D does add function and value, just like surround sound, sound, color, motion, and images period do. None of them are necessary for telling a story, but each presents the story in a way which is more like what you experience on a daily basis. They're all perfectly natural, if done correctly.

A problem lately is films which do 3D in a mediocre way. I saw Avatar in 3D and they made it from the start with considerations for the 3D presentation--they were very careful, for example, to not have large objects feel like they were sticking out of the screen moving in and out of the edges of the image. It doesn't make sense for something "inside" the theater to vanish into thin air, and it's distracting and confusing to your mind if somebody in a closer row overlaps the screen slightly and appears to be further away than something coming out of the screen. As a general rule, things should not come out of the screen except in very rare cases (subtitles are a decent example, as well as some light particle effects, dust, things of that nature). 3D is about giving depth into the image and speed, not shit sticking out of the screen. Alice failed in this regard at times--not because they were trying to make things stick out at the viewer, but because the 3D was sloppy. Some scenes had amazing depth and speed, others were almost completely flat. And as I mentioned before, they weren't careful about keeping objects "inside" the theater from intersecting the edge of the screen... if you think of the screen as being a giant window to a theater or room where the action is taking place it makes sense for things further away than the window to come and go at the edge of the screen... it's just moving to hide them from view. Not things which are inside the room, though. Avatar was good about this, Alice was not, although I still found it to be a generally entertaining movie.

You already know my thoughts on Blu-ray, but for those who don't, I think that 2D animation is actually perhaps the most compelling use for it, and I'll take an animated film over a normal one any day when it comes to Blu-ray. On a proper screen, even the oldest animated films are nothing short of gorgeous. The old movies, done before the concept of a computerized image and thus image resolution had even been thought up, were all made with exquisite detail. Almost all major animated films are, because they were intended to be shown on theater screens several stories tall, not 24" TVs with under 640 discrete pieces of detail from the top to the bottom of an image. For example, Sleeping Beauty (and that's not even 1080p) and Pinoccio show exquisite detail. In short, the added resolution and bitrate of Blu-ray isn't just inventing new pixels which weren't there before, they're capturing more of the original detail that the artists put in for people to see, at very little added cost. DVD quality isn't what the animators worked for people to view, it was those massively detailed projected images. Like with 3D, high-def for animation (or in general) is something which does have very real value, whether it's worth the cost increase to you or not is of course a personal decision. I still look forward to showing you Blu-ray versions of Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Pinoccio on a proper screen whenever you visit... I got them specifically to show to you (I honestly never cared for any of those 3 movies). At the end of the day, no added considerations need to be taken for a movie that gets a theatrical release, as far as Blu-ray is concerned... the quality needed for it to be bearable in a theater is a lot more than you'll get from Blu-ray, so they don't have to do any extra work.

This all reminds me of the graphics vs storyline arguments people make when it comes to videogames. Some people say that it's just the visuals that sell, other people say that a game can be good and sell well and look like crap if it has an awesome story. They make it seem like it's a choice between just one or just the other. In the words of the great Tony Stark, I say, is it too much to ask for both? I don't want a shallow story, or a poorly presented one either. Movies these days are very expensive endeavors, and we pay good money to see them, so they should excel in all ways.

I think you're too caught up in the style of presentation. Lots of people are. Sometimes a director has a vision which involves 2D animation, or 3D animation, or stop-action, or live action, or any mixture of those things. No one is directly better than the others. Some have certain perceived roles (anything that isn't live action is more likely to be viewed as entertainment for kids, for example) but any can be conducive to a good story and characters.

Finally, I personally am glad that the 3D revolution is finally happening. The technology has been peeking up periodically over the past decades, and it's about time to just take the plunge and get on board with it. Hopefully, in a few years, having a 3D version of a movie won't be some huge selling point, it'll just be expected. By that point, and with movies such as Avatar showing how 3D can be done in a mature way which is anything but "HEY LOOK I'M THROWING OBJECTS OUT OF THE SCREEN AT THE VIEWERS TO TRY AND ENGAGE THEM", they'll make movies which incorporate depth with the same care as they do color. You wouldn't watch a movie which said "Hey, we can use all these colors! Let's just make random bright colors to make sure you remember that you're watching a color movie!", right? But color can be (and is in every movie I can think of) used in a realistic, sensible fashion. The same will happen to 3D. And if it really does give you a headache, well, you can just watch the 2D version of the movie.

Sorry, I meant 480 pieces of discrete detail from the top to the bottom.

Dear Twile,


During the course of your argument in which you have made many MANY very compelling arguments you have also failed to acknowledge any or all of mine.

For one, you bring up toward the end that "And if it really does give you a headache, well, you can just watch the 2D version of the movie." When I have already stated that I have seen the 2d versions. My argument was that it didn't change the actual experience for me, nor did it change the movie. That's my point entirely. I won't judge the movies by the migraine I got during the 3d experience and nor would I judge 3d just because my head hurts. But I will say it's a GIMMICK and continue to refer to it as a GIMMICK, with the re-enforced definition of it.

In another part of your argument you presume that I am too swept away with the presentation style. When in fact, most of my arguments are presented are quite the opposite of that. You are actually arguing for the presentational style, which needs to support the core, the story.

I would also retract your argument regarding video games. While I have a similar point of view on games, I think the intent of video games is the playing part. There are stories that can ONLY work for video games. Megaman for example is a cheesy as balls story and it changes from game to game, BUT the games are ridiculously fun. However, take a story like say Kane and Lynch which is actually a REALLY AWESOME story, but a remarkably LAME game. The point of the game is the playing part, and the story actually needs to support that. That's a point where I feel you need good visuals for (lets face it) the sake of coherent interraction, a story to link it all together, and above all awesome game play. But again these all need to work together and not independently of one another.

Now in closing.

As I said before, you have made excellent and very intelligent, compeling arguments for the sake of 3d. Before ANYONE replies to you they'd have to read this whole thing twice.. ( or 3 times much like I did), hell I'd use yours as an argument against people who dismiss it entirely without experiencing it first. However, not ONCE did I ever hear you, during your whole argument, mention how involved you were in any of the movies. The little details, all the small things that are brought out in Blu Ray as you have said, are actually designed by the animators to be ignored. The whole point of designing an environment is so that you believe it, not so that you are obsessed with all the little details. If you are obsessed with all those little details then the characters, the story, the emotion, are all missed on you. And all you've done is satisfied yourself on the sake of the visuals and missed the entire point of the movie. In which all the elements; story, visuals, and medium are all working together.

I don't think I've failed to acknowledge your arguments. But for the sake of making sure I don't dismiss your stuff, I'll address everything you said.

I agree that Alice was not revolutionary, but was entertaining and fun. And the 3D was strange. This is because Alice was not shot in 3D. The 3D was simulated using... I don't even know. Probably a combination of manual depth placement and software to try and figure out the depth of things. Point being, they did half-assed 3D for this movie, which I am entirely against. If you want to shoot a movie in 3D, then fine--you have to be aware of the implications that has before you even start figuring out the shots you want, instead of after filming is done. See also: James Cameron criticizing Alice for being shot in 2D rather than 3D from the start.

If it didn't change the experience in a positive way for you, and 3D doesn't in general, then that's fine. Unfortunate that you don't enjoy it, but I acknowledge that not everyone sees much value in it, and I accept that. I just wish that you would accept that stereoscopic 3D simply is the way that we experience the world, so long as you have two functioning eyes, and adding that to a movie is not a gimmick. It's a more faithful reproduction which has been omitted up until this point because of tech limitations. As I said before, it's exactly like color. You can still tell what's going on without color in your movies, it just clicks better with your brain if it was filmed in color, and it was supposed to be filmed in color. The 3D stuff you're seeing is sub-optimal, and in the case of things like Alice, it's like they filmed in black and white and then had somebody go in with markers to manually color every frame.

It's not a gimmick. I'm sorry, but it's just not. A gimmick is a quirky feature that serves to differentiate a product without adding function or value. 3D movies are in theory not quirky, they're the natural way you experience the world. They do serve to differentiate products, but with CG movies that's becoming more of the exception, and any feature serves to differentiate a product--this is just a small part of the definition and it requires full compliance to mean anything. And as I said, it does add function and value--namely, greater immersion and a sense of presence. If you want to argue to me why 3D is a gimmick, and as long as you're calling me out for not acknowledging your arguments, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain to me why 3D is a gimmick and color/sound/motion/images are not a gimmick in respect to the storytelling experience.

3D did not make Alice great, or even really better. At some points it provided for a very cool experience, at other points and for most of the movie it was just a sort of oddity, stemming from--as I said before--the effect being added in afterwards. So I'll agree with you that making Alice a 3D movie (or perhaps 2.5D?) is akin to putting too much icing on a raw cake.

Blu-ray, HD content, 3D, they don't change the movie. They're not supposed to change the movie. They're supposed to more accurately reproduce the visions of the people involved in the making of the movie. If you just want to have a story with no flair, read a book. If you want a story as seen by someone with a particular view (for example, Burton films) then you see a movie. Visual detail, fine-tuning the colors and contrast and lighting of a scene, using 3D to add a sense of motion/claustrophobia/immersion, sound in a 3D soundscape which creates ambient and directionalized sound effects around you, they're all part of showing that story. That's what movies are about.

And I agree that perhaps CG was part of the reason that 2D started to have some problems to begin with. The Pixar guys themselves admit to that, and they're very much saddened that 2D animation (which is what they trained for) is generally being abandoned. And I do agree that the medium and presentation must support the film, rather than try to pull the story along. You shouldn't want a movie to be CG just because CG is cool, or 2D animated just because that's novel and uncommon.

As a related side-note, Kung Fu Panda. Regardless of what you thought of the story, I wanted to touch on the presentation style because it seems relevant. At the start of the movie when it's got that awesome cel-shaded 2D animated style, everyone I've watched it with or discussed it with has said the same thing: it'd be awesome if the entire movie were like that. It's just so visually flavorful and stylized. How the whole movie would've played out if done that way, I couldn't really predict--I'm not super smart in these things, I'm not a director. Just mentioning this because it somewhat flies in the face of the generally accepted idea that people prefer 3D stuff over 2D stuff.

I won't retract my argument about video games. Gameplay is certainly important, I just don't think that gameplay, story, or graphics should suffer. I'm paying for something which, with a few rare exceptions, should do it all very well. Ultimately for movies or games, you need to start with a very solid idea--either a story, or for a game, a gameplay concept. Around that you weave the rest of the experience. Everything should contribute to that core experience, or it should be cut away.

Ultimately when I watch a movie, I'm not usually distracted by the minor visual elements the first time around. I look where it feels right to look, which is usually to the faces of whoever is talking or moving, and when that isn't happening I glance around to take in the atmosphere of the scene. However, in subsequent viewings, I do find myself looking at finer details and little things I might've missed before. Now, as this pertains to high-def stuff, I have to reiterate what I said before: this isn't something that movie companies have to design for. You remember back a few years when HDTV was really taking off and there were stories about how news anchorpersons had to get plastic surgery and wear more makeup so they wouldn't look awful on the higher-detail video feed? That's not the case for movies now. I don't think that's ever been the case for movies in the past 50 years (and for film animation, since the birth of the art) or more, because even to this day, physical filmstock can store and display more detail than Blu-ray, and in most cases, more than digital theater projection equipment. Coming from a background where high detail from start to finish was always expected, people involved in movie-making have always put in lots of details. I've been reading Blu-ray reviews regularly for months now, and even in films as old as The Wizard of Oz you'll find comments like "A field of tiny flowers, individual strands of straw, costume seams, distant Munchkins, the tight pattern on Dorothy's dress, the intricacies of Billie Burke's gown, Garland's freckles, craters on the Witch's nose, wrinkles on the Wizard's face, Toto's hair... I could go on and on.". Because of the high detail level of the film and the possibility of having many objects close to the camera at some point, prop makers go to the detail of making scratches and nicks on metal, good stitching on clothing, fine details to prosthetics and makeup, etc. That has always been the case, and probably always will.

In closing, I don't require tons of eye-grabbing detail to enjoy a movie. I require a good story to enjoy a movie, or if not a good story, then an experience--be it frequent comedy, engaging music, lovable characters interacting. However, I do not think that a good story/experience, or the insistence that a movie has one, should mean it's okay not to offer the complete experience. As you ended in saying, all the elements should work together. I think the only place where you and I differ in opinion strongly is that I want one or two of those elements (high-def/3D visuals, and perhaps surround sound) to be reproduced in my home with the highest possible fidelity. You're content with a standard-def DVD while I want a high-grade, high-resolution picture, even for 2D animation. And I totally understand your position, even if my eyes are pickier about what I seek for home viewing.

boy that's a lot of argument!

Don't use the word argument. It makes it sound like we're bickering or something. You're presenting your thoughts, I'm presenting my own takes and counter-points, we go back and forth in a civil manner. I'm hoping that I'm about done here, because in my "lot of argument" I think I pretty clearly laid out what I think and why.

yeah but I'm pretty tired and really couldn't present anything against it so I just pointed out the amount of words :3 You can has tonight!

That's some epic typing

You should see me when I'm well-rested and my fingers aren't sore.

Until the day arrives that it is possible to recreate 3D imagery without the need of glasses, (which IS possible, as I was able to see monitors that manage to do this effect, sort of) 3D movies as they are are a gimmick that forces you to use attachments in order to "enjoy them the same way as the real world is".

You keep bringing the color issue as an analogy every time someone talks bad about 3D movies, which frankly is a bad one. The only way people would see color as a gimmick would be if you made them watch a black and white movie with pink colored glasses.

Read the definition of gimmick. Please. Just humor me with this. And then tell me what part of that says that wearing an object has anything at all to do with that. If you want to say that you don't like wearing glasses for 3D, fine. If you want to say that you don't like 3D period, fine. That doesn't make it a gimmick, no matter how much people love to misuse the word. The fact that you think 3D wouldn't be a gimmick if it didn't involve glasses just proves that the 3D effect and experience is not a gimmick, even in your own mind. So until you can show me a definition of gimmick which can be applied or not based on what sort of headwear you have, please stop misusing the word. Color is a fine analogy, because wearing glasses has nothing to do with gimmicks.

If you're caught up on the whole "putting things on your head makes something a gimmick" bit though, I've got a question for you. Is music a gimmick when you have to use headphones to enjoy it because your listening environment won't permit speakers? As you pointed out, it's possible with some fringe monitors to experience 3D without the use of glasses. However, it only works for one person, so if you want it to be a group experience, you need the glasses. Speakers vs headphones are basically the opposite take on the situation--it's easy to listen to music with a group in public using speakers, but if you want to do it in private, you need the headphones. The only difference between wearing things over your ears when you want to enjoy music versus wearing things over your eyes when you want to enjoy 3D movies and games is that the first has been done for so many decades that it doesn't seem silly at all, and that with the 3D glasses you're working for a group experience while the headphones are for a private experience.

When you think about it, it's kinda silly. You're only going to use 3D glasses when you're sitting for a few hours to watch a movie, at which point you usually don't care about how you or other people look. And in most cases, when you wear headphones you are in a public place, and you should care about how you look. And yet countless millions of pairs of headphones are bought and worn each year with nobody complaining about how they look when used in public, while any mention of 3D glasses makes people flip out about how silly you look when you wear them in semi-private.

I already wear glasses. I'm used to needing to put something on my face to be able to experience the world in all its richness beyond arm's reach. I've worn my current pair through India and several stories up a boat mast on the great lakes, I have no problem doing it with another pair on the occasion that I wish to enjoy a movie with the depth and speed that I expect from the real world.

Fine, I will humor you.

Gimmick:

1) Catch: a drawback or difficulty that is not readily evident.
2) Device: any clever maneuver
3) In marketing language, a gimmick is a quirky feature that distinguishes a product or service without adding any obvious function or value. Thus, a gimmick sells solely on the basis of distinctiveness and may not appeal to the more savvy or shrewd customer.

True, just wearing glasses a gimmick does not make; it does make however make for an excuse to charge you more for about the same, and that's where it fits the definition of a gimmick.

So there you are, wanting to see a movie: Do you pay $7 for the normal version, or pay twice as that for the "3D experience"? Just because it makes more money doesn't immediately means it's a good thing; you simply paid more for the shiny. Yes, it is more expensive to develop movies in a 3D format, but if the movie works as fine without it, something's off.

The fact it will become a standard eventually is somewhat undeniable, since technology is indeed advancing; however, recall when CGI animation first came out: People considered the very best next thing and even called 2D animation a piece of garbage compared next to it. CGI wasn't a tool; it was the the killer of 2D. Years later, it would lead to a backlash as people were sick of studios making CGI movies just for a quick buck and wanted more substance.

On a side note, do you ever sit down and read your own comments? You sound less like a guy defending a possible advancement in entertainment and more a guy who simply wants to have the last word (or in your case, paragraphs). Whoever said that 3d Glasses were a fashion statement? Your example of headphones vs spekers is practically a tangent to the whole arguement.

Point said, I think the medium needs to prove itself that it's not just a gimmick, and so far, it's doing a bad job at it.

There are a ton of things in the world which have more feature-rich things for a price premium. Cars, food, computers, houses, clothing. They're not gimmicks unless they don't add any value to the experience. Adding depth to video does add value.

It's odd, how people seem to value or not the whole 3D experience. The really poor people who can barely afford movies as is say "That's silly, we could see 50% more movies if we watched them in 2D." and not see much value in it. People who can afford it but aren't as picky and tech-elitist as upper-mainstream customers say "Whoa! That's really cool! Stuff comes out of the screen at me, how do they do that?" and consider it good fun. The upper-mainstream and most elitists say "Get the hell over yourselves, they're just cheap pop-out effects and it doesn't enhance the movie. The should spend the money on things other than crappy gimmicky effects." and again sees no value. The informed elite say "This doesn't have to be crappy effects which pop out to startle you--look at Avatar. 3D cinema is fringe and expensive right now, but so were other revolutions in the movie industry."

I will concede that there are cases where 3D movies can approach the realm of gimmick. If you've got a movie that was shot in 2D and they added 3D later on as an effect, creating artificial depth values and not actually capturing the movie from two angles, I can no longer make the argument that they're adding what you'd see in the real world if you were actually there. This was the case for Alice. And they love doing it for theatrical releases of movies because, as you pointed out, they can charge more--not just to cover the cost of a second projector, but because they can. Synthetic "2.5D" to draw more people to theaters where they pay higher prices, that's very close to being a gimmick, but in the case of Alice they did have many CG elements which were rendered with accurate 3D presence.

Which is why I'm eager for the upcoming 3D revolution. 3D TVs available for purchase in the home, 3D computer games have been available for at least a decade and I've had my 3D display for a year, and the 3D Blu-ray spec is finalized with titles coming out in mere months. As time goes on, they won't be able to charge as much of a premium for 3D, and as tech improves, they'll be better at capturing and editing the footage. Just look at Avatar, they worked hard to do true 3D capture and have real-time interaction between live-action and digital elements that directors could monitor. That stuff will just get cheaper and better with time.

I think the backlash for crappy 3D occurred before the medium ever hit critical mass. A lot of people are familiar with 3D through theme park rides and a few poorly-made 3D movies from the past decade. A lot of people are skeptical if not outright aggressive towards the technology and its attempt at becoming more mainstream. People have already realized that you can't just blindly use 3D movies with distracting effects to make a good movie.

I do actually read my own comments. Big things like this I read at least once after posting, often once before, in addition to the time spent writing them. My apologies if you don't mind the look of 3D glasses, many people make fun of them for looking silly and act like that's justification enough to shun the technology. In any case that was a tangential argument.

I think the medium has done a fine job, though. Pixar does a good job at making stereoscopic 3D films which look good, feel good, and have enjoyable stories and charming characters. Avatar shows how to use that in a live action setting with admittedly much less in the story department, but most people acknowledge that and probably the biggest collective realization about Avatar was that, although it was pretty and did good work with the 3D, the story wasn't very new or motivating. Of course, the format would do better without 2D-->3D upconverts like Alice (and by the same guy, The Nightmare Before Christmas).

At the end of the day, I've still got my 3D glasses and display to prove that in the realm of gaming, stereoscopic 3D is the coolest thing ever. It's a shame that theaters and Disney movies do such a poor job at showing off the strengths of 3D presentation.

It's odd, how people seem to value or not the whole 3D experience. The really poor people who can barely afford movies as is say "That's silly, we could see 50% more movies if we watched them in 2D." and not see much value in it. People who can afford it but aren't as picky and tech-elitist as upper-mainstream customers say "Whoa! That's really cool! Stuff comes out of the screen at me, how do they do that?" and consider it good fun. The upper-mainstream and most elitists say "Get the hell over yourselves, they're just cheap pop-out effects and it doesn't enhance the movie. The should spend the money on things other than crappy gimmicky effects." and again sees no value. The informed elite say "This doesn't have to be crappy effects which pop out to startle you--look at Avatar. 3D cinema is fringe and expensive right now, but so were other revolutions in the movie industry."

Way to sneak an insult among layers upon layers.

And I'm done with this since it's going nowhere.

I don't see what's insulting about being upper-mainstream or a tech elitist. But whatever, you're never going to respect me or my opinions, so debating about this stuff is indeed pointless.

Alright chillins that'll be enough intarnet slappin for one night!

I do want to be civil and respectful.

It is when you say that the "informed elite" know better than any of the three types before it.

Again, read your posts. Less is more.

Yeah, uh, that's because of the whole "informed" thing. That's like being upset with me because I said that unwashed masses are unwashed. See also: definitions. If you think you fall into that category, don't be upset with me. If you think I'm misrepresenting the opinions with those groups, then feel free to file your complaints to me.

Most people don't get headaches from 3D. A very small minority do.

3D doesn't make a bad story good, nor mediocre characters entertaining. But it can make lovely visuals absolutely stunning if your eyes can deal with 3D properly, which yours seem not to.

Seeing a movie on Blu-Ray doesn't make it a better movie, but it makes it a visually clearer and sharper movie, and that's surely worthwhile.

Can I hire you as my summarizing otter?

Wait, nevermind.

I really dislike the whole 3D thing for several reasons.

- The main one is that I wear glasses with thick frames. The glasses I have to wear to these 3D movies, I have to wear my normal ones under them, and it is always very uncomfortable. I have seen quite a few movies in 3D now, and it's ALWAYS uncomfortable.

- Headaches

- It's distracting for me. I can't get into the movie when they are like that for some reason.

As far as Alice, after I finally found a theater playing it in 2D, I was quite underwhelmed. Very pretty, loved the March Hare, bored by a lot of it. I was sad, too :[ I have no idea why, the use of CG bothered me. I love good CG effects (Avatar was beautiful), but Alice's bothered me. Some of it was amazing, some of it was terrible or made me think "Why did they use CG for that?".

3D, CG, Blu Ray, HD..it all has it's place, but we don't need to slap it on everything to make it SUPER SHINY AWESOME. I enjoy them (well, most of them), but I hate seeing everything get churned out with it when it isn't needed.

Wow, look at those walls of text.

I can't say yay or nay 'cuz I work for a theater, but I will say, I enjoyed it because I enjoy the Wonderland mythos. Other than that, there were thumbs thrusting in a downward vigorous motion and plenty of faces.

It's just a gimmick to get people into theaters. Though now with 3D TV on the way, even that edge might be going the way of the dodo! Movie theaters are dead men walking, just as arcades were in the late 90s. It's only a matter of time.

I'm not sure I understand the appeal, either. I tend not to see movies in the theater these days (it costs a fortune), so I just shrug and wait for the DVD.

I can't wait for more 3 wishes. I was not a cow type but seeing this one in your comic made me change my mind. :D

heehee, thank you so much!! I'm glad to hear feedback on that comic!

I don't get headaches From 3d few movies use it properly. Though Avatar used it Stunningly well. Alice I enjoyed but I watched it in 3d due to the fact i knew going in a 3d Preview it was just hopping on the trend. Its not a gimmick per-say however big business will turn "Anything" into a cash grab if it gets a good review.

I think we expect to much out of movies they are often meant for casual light entertainment you cant cram Epic novels into two hour pieces very well. If people really want deep compelling stories often they sort of need to watch less movies and read more books.

Well movies can be deep, moving and compelling. Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Schindler's List, many many movies of the like are. The discussion is that 3D doesn't enhance the story, or make a movie better, it's just a little trick.

* grunts* Dont look at me for huge walls of text I'm just big buff and dumb. I see it as a tool that can enhance the movie. Like CG not everyone likes CG either. Sorry you get headaches from it.

lol i wasn't looking for a huge wall of text, just a hug thank you very much! secondly, CG Is, to me, a medium, much like paint, water color, color pencils, and photoshop is to art. Movies are a means of telling a story as are books, and CG, 2d animation, and live action are a means of film if that makes sense. I don't, however, think 3d makes it better.

*Hugs you* Oh ill hug you and much more runt;>