Dredd (2012)

[karlurbaninternational]

I do not know...but wouldn`t you hire such a graphic design company to invent your title when you easily can open your local photoshop and just go through some standarts or addons from freefontssomewhereontheinternet.com ... ??? I bet this font got dredd-invented and has a licence now.

[Stan]

Not sure. I probably would've gone with Comic Sans myself, but I'm lazy that way.

[karlurbaninternational]

I knew this ComicSan joke would come up. Hell no, please.

[PreacherCain]

3D can work for action films if well choreographed scenes are used that utilise moving camerawork more and don't rely on fast editing for impact.

Maybe with the higher frame rates than Cameron and Jackson are pushing. It all looks a bit blurry to me, for the most part. Personally I'll be seeing Dredd in 2D only and have absolutely zero interest in seeing it in that other format.

Also: 3D is incredibly annoying for anyone who has to wear glasses already.

[Stan]

I knew this ComicSan joke would come up. Hell no, please.

Who's joking? I have an NVQ level 3 in graphic design and I can assure you Comic Sans will make this film box office gold.

[Beaky Smoochies]

Yeah, that's what bothers me about the whole 3D thing. Generally speaking. Though, like Radiator I'm a little curious to see why they thought it necessary for Dredd so I don't mind donning the goggles for this one.

Dredd secured it's $45m budget in May 2010, right at the height of the post-Avatar 3-D fad, so I presume it was a prerequisite of it getting financed, which is okay with me, if any comic-book adaptation deserves the 3-D treatment, it's Dredd, the density and detail of the Big Meg always struck me in hindsight as perfect for that format...

[PreacherCain]

if any comic-book adaptation deserves the 3-D treatment, it's Dredd, the density and detail of the Big Meg always struck me in hindsight as perfect for that format...

Surely that'd be Transmetropolitan. He's even got the glasses! 

[MR. ELIMINATOR]

OK, I know this is a dredd thread, but I am just too used to posting thoughts in here.

My previous post about empire's prometheus rating I retract. It is a god damn awful film!

[Mark Taylor]

This made me laugh. 3D is, and has always been, a poorly-realised gimmick.

I've seen good 3D and bad 3D. It depends partly on the movie and partly on where you see it. Some cinemas have not implemented the technology properly. It's entirely possible they've tried to do it 'on the cheap'. When you see 3D in a cinema which has set it up properly it's far from poorly realized. It's extremely good.

As for the other factor - the films - of course there are plenty out there which have made poor use of 3D and so won't come across great no matter how good the cinema. This is a reflection of the fact that 3D is still in its infancy - in other words, the movies will get better naturally as movie makers learn how to make proper use of the format.

I speak as someone who sees several movies a month at the cinema (one which has implemented 3D technology properly) so I constantly have the opportunity to compare the 3D and 2D movie experiences. There are plenty of movies out there where the 3D doesn't add much, if anything to the experience. There are even a few where it detracts from the experience but they are becoming increasingly uncommon. For those movies where it enhances the experience, it can do so a great deal. As people learn how to make use of the medium, the last category can only become more common.

Yes, there is currently a backlash against these factors. Some movie makers will balk at this and bug out of the 3D scene. But I don't believe the industry as a whole will react that way. The industry as a whole will react by addressing these teething problems. It won't happen overnight, but you can bet plans are already being laid in certain quarters.

[Bat King]

I plan on watching 2d first. If it is a good film my second viewing will be 3d.

I wear glasses, the 3d glasses are never an issue, they suit fine. But while impressed by there clarity of modern 3d I don't think itadds as much to the film as it detracts.

This is why first showing I see will be 2d.

[KingMonkeysUnkle]

Something doesn't work for me with 3D movies.
I dunno what it is but I have no interest in seeing them at all.
Maybe it's a distant, thus far locked away memory of the 3D movies of my youth, complete with dual coloured paper glasses and accompanying migraine. Either way, it'll be 2D for me.

[a chosen rider]

I've never quite dared see a film in 3D.  My depth perception is crap - my glasses do correct it, but I still can't work Magic Eye pictures and I have had headaches from other types of 3D effect before.  For all I know, I might be fine with a 3D film, but it's a hefty ticket price to pay on a gamble over whether I'm going to have to duck out with a brain-splitting migraine.  My experiments with squinting at a demo model 3D TV in my local supermarket have not left me encouraged.

[Toni Scandella]

The last film I saw in 3D was Jaws 3D.  I wear glasses and tend to favour one eye, and have never been able to see 3D films (or images) that use the two different colour lenses - but Jaws 3D had non-coloured lenses and still the only 3D part that worked for me was when there was a scene with a dolphin or something jumping out of a pool - the water splashes when it landed did seem to come out at me.  That is the _only_ time I can remember any 3D effect ever working for me with my lazy eyes.

I tried watching a demo of a football match on a 3D TV in a shopping centre in 3D recently, and it did not work.  I was also a bit disoriented and had a bit of a headache after taking off the specs.  All of this stuff gives me a natural aversion to 3D - it could be the best thing ever for all I know but I don't want to see Dredd in 3D (at least not the first time) in case the whole thing is spoiled and is just a massive headache.

So I will serch for a normal 2D screening.

[Michaelvk]

I wear glasses.. When I go see a 3D movie I wear contacts..

As for the red and blue (anaglyph). I've got 3D software that is 3D capable, and I got a 3D monitor to go with it. It's passive, so I can use the same glasses as you do at the pictures.. I got the monitor because the anaglyph was very very hard on the eyes. The passive glasses just make me look too cool to be in the art department.. Though it did come with a pair of nice, grounding, flip up clip ons..

When 3D at the nice, cheap, 24fps starts moving quick, it strobes, which annoys the bejesus out of me. The frame rate can also screw up your ability to focus because of said strobing. 24fps has been the norm since the beginning of time when producers were looking to spend the least money on film stock.. As soon as they start screening 3D movies in higher frame rates, a lot of the woes will disappear.

[Steve Green]

Woes for you will disappear maybe, but 3D at 48fps is quadrupling the amount of rendering for CGI artists.

Still undecided on the 48fps issue, I'll be curious to see how the Hobbit looks and if I can shake the daytime soap or sports feel that frame rates like that give me.