Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
November 10, 2013
Image Size
153 KB
Resolution
1284×414
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
33,940 (18 today)
Favourites
628 (who?)
Comments
284
Downloads
168
×
Still A Gimmick by jollyjack Still A Gimmick by jollyjack
Saw Gravity in 3D, because if I didn't, I'd be constantly wondering if I had missed out on something grand.
That is the last time I follow the herd.
If Avatar and Gravity are examples of how 3D is best used: f**k it. It's a waste of money (and probably your eyes).
There was nothing different about Gravity to any other 3D film, other than that, as most visuals were backed by the blackness of space, the effect was more pronounced.
It doubt it made the movie any more or less impressive than if it had been seen in 2D.
I will say, though, that it'd be worth watching on an IMAX screen. Just seems made for that.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconilovemuskrats:
ILoveMuskrats Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I feel like "John Smith ucantrustme" is a Doctor Who reference...but it could be a happy coincidence 
Reply
:icontakuoswipe:
TakuoSwipe Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2014  Student Writer
Dude I saw alot of movies that had 3D in them, and I was like...okay where's the awesome 3D scene...is this just in 3D just to get my money...oh wait he threws his glasses at the audience...okay, now what? I want my money back.
Reply
:iconiluvme4never:
iluvme4never Featured By Owner May 19, 2014  Student Filmographer
I just didn't like gravity.  Sandra Bullock's character was just dry and annoying.  I felt no emotional attachment to her nor her well-being whatsoever.
Reply
:iconsteelskeleton:
SteelSkeleton Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2014
3D is a passing fad. It was a gimmick when it started, it's a gimmick now, it'll be a gimmick in the future. It'll die down again here in a few years, only to resurface again a few decades after, just like it did now.
Reply
:iconadamrozza:
AdamRozza Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2014  Student General Artist
I watched both Hobbit movies (so far) in both 2D and 3D. I can honestly say, the 3D in those movies is incredibly well done and if you didn't watch them in 3D, you missed out big time.
Reply
:iconkato42:
kato42 Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014
3D is a stupid gimmick, only about 10% of viewers get enough out of it for it to be worth the effort, for everyone else its at best a mildly entertaining gimmick.

Most entertaining thing is that technologically or effect wise, its only a minor improvement over the old blue-red glasses concept.
Reply
:iconckentavr:
CKentavr Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2014
If only IMAX used a circular polarization... The old style they use with flat polarization means it effect breaks down if you tilt your head.
Reply
:iconnefertirix:
Nefertirix Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2014
I saw Gravity in the cinema, though I don't remember if it was 2D or 3D? ... Gravity is a very good film, that's the point. :D
Reply
:iconferain:
Ferain Featured By Owner Jan 11, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I don't have any particular like or dislike towards 3d. In some movies it works better and in others it falls flat (excuse the pun). I actually think in Avatar the 3d made you miss out on some of the more subtle camera effects, like focus changes etc. you didn't notice when missiles and stuff was flying around in front of your face in 3d. On the other hand of the spectrum I was pretty impressed by how realistic the 3d and high frame rate worked in the Hobbit movies for the eagles and dragon. 

But to each his or her own =)
Reply
:iconsyafiqjabar:
syafiqjabar Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2014
Here's something you should read:
smugfilm.com/a-rebuttal-to-gra…

The first paragraph:
"The 3D diorama effect was kind of essential here, because it’s a film in a setting where people are literally thin slices floating on a plane of nothingness. It created strong contrasts between Bullock and the stars, debris and earth, and even the thumb-printed glass of the helmet and the actor’s faces. There’s one moment where a space station, a person, and the Earth are all in frame, separated by hundreds of miles, and all perfectly in focus because of a lack of atmospheric distortion. The 3D made that distance come alive in a way it can’t in 2D. It’s about gulfs, impossible blank gulfs, and that’s why it’s one of the only truly essential uses of 3D I’ve seen yet. About the only other one I can think of is Cave of Forgotten Dreams, which used it to bring out distances of millimeters of depth on a wall. Seems like 3D is at its best when it’s working with the very small or the very large."
Reply
Add a Comment: