[–] EnemyGoat 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The last 3D movie I saw in theaters was The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The 3D experience ruined the movie more me. Later, I watched the movie in 2D and changed my mind. The characters didn't look as cheesy and their movements didn't look so bizarre. I liked it. The Hobbit was listed under the 'real' 3D movie list too. So I think any movie listed under 'fake' 3D would be a bad idea. But ultimately I don't think any movie would be worth seeing in 3D.
[–] michaelmenace [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
In my experience 3D movies usually don't add much, or seem to make the objects any better. I can't think of any movie I've seen where it has. Hopefully it'll improve.
[–] GoddammitMrNoodle 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
There's the odd film where 3D improves the experience. Dredd comes to mind, and possibly Fury Road but I haven't seen it in 2D yet to compare. Oh and Avatar of course, the 3D was the only reason to see that film.
Otherwise it's mostly just a distraction.
[–] Citizen_Kong ago
That it looked fake had probably more to do with the fact that it was shown in HFR. The higher framerate does weird things like making it look like a cheap TV production and make scenes seem sped up. It's mainly our brain not being used to seeing so much visual information in movies.
[–] Cool_Breeze 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Personally, I only like to watch 3D movies if they were filmed with 3D in mind or with 3D cameras. When 3D is applied in post, it feels forced and more blurry. I think the last 3D movie I watched (and liked the effects of) was Transformers 3.
I try to avoid it because bad 3D pulls me out of the movie.
[–] Exist2Resist 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
The reason it looks blurry is because the director is not filming it properly. The thing with 3D is that you can not pan and scan as fast as you can with 2D. I remember sitting in on a panel of directors and the one thing they noted is that you have to change your direcorial style for 3D or you will destroy the convergence and create a problem for the viewers eyes. Also they noted that directing in 3D is more like a theatrical play than a movie, your shots have to be long and well thought out, versus quick and jerky.
[–] Cool_Breeze 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Exactly. You have to film the movie with 3D in mind. Most don't, and the 3d effects are added in post.
I don't believe this film was shot in 3D.
For some people, they've gotten used to 3D just adding another dimension period, even without 'eye-popping effects." I have friends who watch nearly all 2D shows in 3D. That being said, most 3D movies are just conversions. Though conversions and technology have come a long way, there is a big difference between a conversion and a film shot on 3D.
[–] Exist2Resist ago
You can look up any technical specification of a movie on imdb just follow the ttxxxxxxx with /technical
[–] michaelmenace [S] ago
Cool to know I guess, but that stuff doesn't mean anything to me really
[–] Citizen_Kong 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago (edited ago)
Cinemablend does reviews of the 3D-quality here, but the one for Ant Man isn't up yet.
EDIT: Aaand there it is. And it seems to be in favour of the 2D version.
[–] michaelmenace [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I tried finding it on Cinemablend (google brought me there), but nothing there yet. You'd think they'd have it up before the release tomorrow.