Discussion
funkyrobot said:
Ok, thanks. The ticket price is still only £7.50 for 3D, which is cheaper than the other cinema close to me showing the film in 2D. I think i'll let the OH decide on this one 
The 2D is done well but it is wirth noting that it is a post 3D conversion, the movie was not filmed in 3D. So even in 3D do not expect Avatar levels of 3D awesome, just nicely done extra depth.Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
Civpilot said:
The 2D is done well but it is wirth noting that it is a post 3D conversion, the movie was not filmed in 3D. So even in 3D do not expect Avatar levels of 3D awesome, just nicely done extra depth.
Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
That makes sense. The 3D seemed like multiple layers of 2D to me. It was glaringly obvious in places, one example being the tracking shot of the little girl running along the street when we first meet Dr. Banner. I found it really offputting. If I were to go see it again it would definitely be in 2D. Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
JonRB said:
Civpilot said:
The 2D is done well but it is wirth noting that it is a post 3D conversion, the movie was not filmed in 3D. So even in 3D do not expect Avatar levels of 3D awesome, just nicely done extra depth.
Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
That makes sense. The 3D seemed like multiple layers of 2D to me. It was glaringly obvious in places, one example being the tracking shot of the little girl running along the street when we first meet Dr. Banner. I found it really offputting. If I were to go see it again it would definitely be in 2D. Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
Although as far as post production conversions go I think Avengers is by far the best yet. If you really want a laugh see if you can see the remade Clash of the Titans in 3D.... laughably bad.
2D is fine for this movie.... nothing can detract from the awesomness of finally seeing the Hulk totally and utterly nailed!!!! Said it before, but Banner and Hulk are totally perfect!!
Civpilot said:
Although as far as post production conversions go I think Avengers is by far the best yet. If you really want a laugh see if you can see the remade Clash of the Titans in 3D.... laughably bad.
Seems to me that this is analogous to the early days of CDs where you had to look on the back to see if they were AAD, ADD or DDD (i.e. were recorded in analogue, mixed in analogue, then converted to digital in the case of AAD or digital all the way for DDD)Likewise, you need to know if a film was recorded in 3D or converted to 3D afterwards.
JonRB said:
Seems to me that this is analogous to the early days of CDs where you had to look on the back to see if they were AAD, ADD or DDD (i.e. were recorded in analogue, mixed in analogue, then converted to digital in the case of AAD or digital all the way for DDD)
Likewise, you need to know if a film was recorded in 3D or converted to 3D afterwards.
That's not a great analogy. Video recorded in 3D is always better than converted 2D, but DDD is not always better than ADD which is not always better than AAD. But I agree it should be made clear whether a film is 3D3D or 2D3D.Likewise, you need to know if a film was recorded in 3D or converted to 3D afterwards.
Alex said:
That's not a great analogy. Video recorded in 3D is always better than converted 2D, but DDD is not always better than ADD which is not always better than AAD. But I agree it should be made clear whether a film is 3D3D or 2D3D.
I was using it more as an illustration than a direct analogy. As you've noted, it was more a case of illustrating that we need to know if it was filmed in 3D or not. Civpilot said:
The 2D is done well but it is wirth noting that it is a post 3D conversion, the movie was not filmed in 3D. So even in 3D do not expect Avatar levels of 3D awesome, just nicely done extra depth.
Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
Thanks. I'm not that fussed about it being 3D, it's just that if I want to see it a little cheaper my only option is 3D. Being tight you see Having seen it in 3D first time out I will probably watch it a second time in 2D. It's nice but doesn't add that much really.
funkyrobot said:
Thanks. I'm not that fussed about it being 3D, it's just that if I want to see it a little cheaper my only option is 3D. Being tight you see
Well if 3D is a cheaper option then it is actually a no brainer as the movie is great regardless and it does add some nice depth at times. In fact it's done in a very unobtrusive way really, couple of 'at the camera' bits, but few and far between.If 3D was the more expensive option (as it is normally) then I would stick by the "it doesn't need to be in 3D" opinion.
JonRB said:
Famous Graham said:
Gutted - didn't go in the UK as I wanted to see it in a US theater (this kind of film can be great fun with american audiences)
God, I can think of few things worse than a bunch of septics a-whoopin', a-hollerin' and clapping / whistling during a film. 
Far better than a bunch of chavs texting.Famous Graham said:
I saw Ironman in the theater on Santa Monica Boulevard. It was actually very enjoyable Far better than a bunch of chavs texting.
This seems to crop up a lot on here. Is it an England thing? I have never had issues with people disturbing films or unpleasant behaviour at the cinema. Far better than a bunch of chavs texting.Finally seen AA tonight. What a film!!! Loved it.
As mentioned already, superb cast, obviousley we know half the cast already, but Ruffalo, Johanson and the Hawk-eye fella all put in excellent performances.
I really wish I hadn't looked on here after it came out, I spoilt a few parts for myself, but it was still very funny.
I wish there was more of Hulk, I absolutly love that character, and between director and actor, they have got it spot on. Norton's Hulk was good, but AA Hulk is the best yet by a long way. We know they're planning Ironman 3 and Thor 2, but will there be another Hulk stand alone film? I'd love it if there were.
Bring on Avengers 2...
As mentioned already, superb cast, obviousley we know half the cast already, but Ruffalo, Johanson and the Hawk-eye fella all put in excellent performances.
I really wish I hadn't looked on here after it came out, I spoilt a few parts for myself, but it was still very funny.
I wish there was more of Hulk, I absolutly love that character, and between director and actor, they have got it spot on. Norton's Hulk was good, but AA Hulk is the best yet by a long way. We know they're planning Ironman 3 and Thor 2, but will there be another Hulk stand alone film? I'd love it if there were.
Bring on Avengers 2...
Raify said:
funkyrobot said:
Off to see this tonight hopefully, but the cinema only has it in 3D. Is it worth me going elsewhere to find it in 2D? Don't really favour 3D but the cinema is slightly cheaper than elsewhere, and a little bit closer.
3D isn't worth it, find it somewhere in 2D.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff