Tron? I think I stepped in some once.

[jacey]

Tron - Legacy: a Non Review.

I can't review this because though I went to see it with Hilary this afternoon  we walked out well before the end because the 3D was horrible (blurry and eye-achingly zippy), the plot was almost non-existent seeming to consist of lots of samey-gamey chases, the treatment on some of the voices was so awful we couldn't make out the words (the whole thing was too loud which didn't help the sound distortion), and - frankly - it was really, really, REALLY boring.

And we don't walk our of movies easily when we've paid good money. (This from the women who even sat through Dragonballs and Clone Wars right to the end!)

And to add insult to injury:
a) it seems to be ONLY available in 3D (I would always see 2Din preference) and
b) the Cineworld cinema charges more for 3-D and
c) we were charged an extra £1.50 for using an Orange Wednesday twofer because it was 3D

That's the last 3D movie I go to see at Cineworld.... Evah!

Comments

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I should have signed that:
Jacey Bedford, going to see crap movies so you don't have to.

I'm also against 3D

[wswears.livejournal.com]

I'm just mildly PO'd with James Cameron for developing 3D to the point where it can enrich SOME movie experiences. Now, everybody gets to make an insane profit on a technology that still isn't far enough along to be more than a gimmick.

We'll know when the technology is far enough along by the complete lack of goofy glasses, and an inability to perceive a screen against which the film is showing.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Cineworld is not the only place not to show a 2D version. Apparently the 2D version (and there is one) is rarer than hen's teeth. People had actually started complaining about this on Kermode and Mayo Film Reviews the day after the movie was released.

What is happening, I suspect, is that more people are getting fed up with 3D and going to the 2D versions, which is clashing with the money spent on the 3D versions and the desperate need of studios, distributors and cinemas to get a return.

Re: I'm also against 3D

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Speaking as one who, while impressed by the effects in Avatar was also annoyed by the limitations of the current 3D system, mainly by the fact that only parts are in focus, the sooner this craze for 3D (not the first) goes away the better. Of course, the fact the script was crap didn't help...

Spend a hundred mil to tell a shite story. . .

[wswears.livejournal.com]

I know a lot of people hate Avatar, but I really had fun at that movie. Still, Avatar is representative of a go for broke trend, where the costs surrounding individual movies exceed the GNP of entire nations - it's no surprise that movie-makers have become sort of desperate to find a new profit venue. 3D isn't really the one, I think, but until some 3D flicks bomb, nobody's going to budge. I think our problem is that it doesn't cost a lot more to add the effect, but it generates much more money per screen. At least it does unless the audience bails on the effect, again.

Bill

Re: Spend a hundred mil to tell a shite story. . .

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I enjoy Avatar. It's a work of art.

Re: Spend a hundred mil to tell a shite story. . .

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I enjoed Avatar, too, despite the average script and the dances-with-blue-people storyline. It was, indeed, very pretty and the 3D was well used and reasonably subtle. Yeah, it would have been nice if the stunning visuals had been accompanied by a superb script and mind blowingly intgelligent storyline, but hey, one out of three is 100% better than Tron.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

If folks are avoiding 3D that should tell them something. Let's hope that it's a passing phase like it was in the days of red and green cellophane glasses. Anyone buying a 3-D telly right now would be MAD!