If The Land Before Time came out in 3D

[Mirumoto_Kenjiro]

If the newer movies are in 3D, then I'd watch it.  The original movie is too good to be fouled up by an attempt to make it 3D.

[F-14 Ace]

As somebody who hates 3d with a burning passion, no.  3d feels weird and t makes me sick watching it.  I hope this 3d craze is just a passing fad.

[WeirdRaptor]

Ugh. Why is everyone so willing to defend 3D? Its a gimmick. Nothing more.

[Clawandfang]

Ugh. Why is everyone so willing to defend 3D? Its a gimmick. Nothing more.

I wonder the opposite; why everyone feels the need to knock 3D. 3D hasn't had all the kinks worked out yet, some directors are still too pleased with it to stop just playing with it and integrate it properly and it just generally hasn't had much chance yet. New improvements to 3D are being made all the time, which one day should alleviate the pain it causes your eyes.
Realistically, 3D as an advance in technology for media is no different to any other; it's a huge increase in the visual experience (which is part of what films are about; if I solely cared about plot and characters I'd be reading a book rather than watching a film, or listening to the radio).

[Nintendoofah64]

If it was still the same, then I'd see it. I'd also like it even more if it was remastered.

[Animeboye]

(which is part of what films are about; if I solely cared about plot and characters I'd be reading a book rather than watching a film, or listening to the radio).

That is exactly the mentality that movie goers today possess. "Oh but the movie has good effects and good 3D so why should it need a story? It's not like it's trying to win an Oscar!!!" Sorry but character development and story are necessary to make a good movie no matter what film it is. Without character development and story, why should I care that a team of superheroes is trying to save the world from the evil Dr. RichScumBag? Why should I care that five horny teens are being chased by a crazed serial killer? Why should I find  two pot heads who have the munchies funny? What does it matter to me if that cowboy doll and the cool spaceman action figure get back to their owner? Story! Character development! These are what movies need! I don't care if your movie has the best effects in the whole friggin' world! If the writing sucks, so does the movie! That's the reality of it!

As an aspiring writer, I find it very disheartening that people are so taken in by animals farting, 3D and giant robots beating each others' brains...er circuits out that they no longer care about the quality of the movie's writing. You ever see the movie Idiocracy? There's a scene in that film that explains that in the future, the highest grossing movie of all time is called "Ass" and all it is is an ass farting on screen for two hours. That scene reminds me of what's happening with movies today. Most good movies are shunned and bomb at the Box Office and crappy movies like Transformers 2 and the Last Airbender end up making money. If one of my stories ever gets made into a movie, I'm going to personally request that they don't make it in 3D. I would want people to admire the characters and story, not the "too coo' fo' skoo'" 3D.

[WeirdRaptor]

What Animeboye said, I can't put it any better. No, films not are just about the visual aspect. They require good writing, too. I am appalled to be on the same website as someone like you. With a single comment about movies not needing character development or good stories you have offended every intelligent brain cell I possess.

[aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato)]

I am appalled to be on the same website as someone like you. With a single comment about movies not needing character development or good stories you have offended every intelligent brain cell I possess.

Sorry that he somehow insulted to the point of personal attacks with his remarkably benign comment, but you've also interpreted his meaning incorrectly.

it's a huge increase in the visual experience (which is part of what films are about;

He did not say that movies don't require good stories, he said that they do require good visuals, along with good writing and character development. A movie can have a great storyline and a well crafted complete hero's journey, but if the camerawork and acting is poorly done, the movie will flop, though it might have made a good novel.

[WeirdRaptor]

No, he said that films about the visual experience and can just be eye candy. He also said if he was worried about story, he'd a read a book. I find that offensive as a budding writer, myself. Oh, and films with bad writing and acting do do well. Just look at both of the Avatar movies.
Also, 3D is not a big leap in the visual experience. They're moving cardboard cut-outs in front of a background. Nothing more. No 3D film has ever increased my enjoyment of a film. And if any of you would bother to read my post, 3D GRAPHICS FUCKING MY FUCKING EYES! I refuse to ever see any film in 3D. Its pointless, useless, and it hurts. My. Eyes. A film should stand on its own with a useless gimmick. And if a part of your audience is swinting, looking away, and trying to deal with actual pain while trying to watch your over-priced movie, then its especially uselesss and that person isn't getting much out of, is he/she? The only good advancements in film and the ones that everyone can enjoy, like further perfecting CGI and the like.

[Malte279]

No, he said that films about the visual experience and can just be eye candy. He also said if he was worried about story, he'd a read a book. I find that offensive as a budding writer, myself.

No WR, what he said was:

Realistically, 3D as an advance in technology for media is no different to any other; it's a huge increase in the visual experience (which is part of what films are about; if I solely cared about plot and characters I'd be reading a book rather than watching a film, or listening to the radio).

"which is part of what films are about..." I think it is hard to make a point of movies being not partly about the visual experience.
Please WR take a deep breath for I really think that you are overreacting here. Nobody is trying to offend you. I appreciate your contributions but I really think you are currently talking yourself into a rage where there is no cause.
Some people appreciate 3D technology (which does not mean that they are automatically supportive of the decrease in story quality that may get along with 3D quality in case of some movies). Decrease in story quality and 3D however are not the same. Please relax and don't take offense in the fact that some people like or don't care about 3D rather than hating it with heart and soul.

[JitteryDragon]

If I want 3D, I go outside. I don't need no stinking glasses, either (that's a lie, if i don't wear normal glasses I will walk into a tree at some point).

A theatrical presentation is just that, a presentation... and thus it is in the eye of the beholder to get what he wants out of the experience. If said person would enjoy a movie more because of the 3D aspect, then good for them. Same reason why some people enjoy story and character, and others just want to see robots beat each other up... it's all in what the audience wants or expects. You aren't being forced to watch what you don't like... and as such wouldn't see something like Shrek for the gripping story and well written characters, or Inception for the silly fart gags (of which there are none, so there).

As for LBT going 3D? No, just no. It wont work and couldn't possibly increase the enjoyment factor. There is simply not enough scenes that could take advantage of the technology.

[Malte279]

By the way, aren't the movies produced in 3D shown in regular style in the US as well? Over here movies like Avatar, Ice Age 3 etc. are usually shown as both normal and 3D in the theaters (in which case there really isn't much of a problem if everyone can pick the version he or she prefers).

[JitteryDragon]

In Tasmania (and the rest of Australia I would presume) we get a choice of 2D or 3D for movies. We don't have many theatres down here, so when a 3D movie comes out theres only one or two that offer the 3D option.

It doesn't seem to be a big fad down here. Everyone was going on about the 3D sequences in How To Train Your Dragon, but I saw it in 2D and still thought it was a good movie. Avatar in 3D was just... disorienting.

[Clawandfang]

No, he said that films about the visual experience and can just be eye candy. He also said if he was worried about story, he'd a read a book.

I said if I was solely concerned with plot and characters I'd read a book rather than go see a film, and often that is indeed the case; I actually read a lot more than I watch. But there are times when I want a visual aspect as well, and that's when I hit the cinema (or more usually our rental outlet in reality).

Also, 3D is not a big leap in the visual experience. They're moving cardboard cut-outs in front of a background. Nothing more.

I think it's a little more sophisticated than that; even you're a big hater of 3D, I can't quite understand how you can claim it doesn't look amazing. I mean, I only very vaguely enjoyed Avatar because of the terribly-written characters (and it dragged...on...and on...), but I still have to admit that it is one of the most gorgeous-looking films I've ever seen.

And if any of you would bother to read my post, 3D GRAPHICS F*****G MY F*****G EYES!

I understand skim-reading other people's posts, I really do; when one has other things to do and there are a few topics one wants to get a reply in, but when you're complaining this badly about other people doing it, I'd think it would be best to check you're not doing it first:

New improvements to 3D are being made all the time, which one day should alleviate the pain it causes your eyes.

[Animeboye]

I think it's a little more sophisticated than that; even you're a big hater of 3D, I can't quite understand how you can claim it doesn't look amazing. I mean, I only very vaguely enjoyed Avatar because of the terribly-written characters (and it dragged...on...and on...), but I still have to admit that it is one of the most gorgeous-looking films I've ever seen.
 

Because it's not that amazing. It's images popping up at you. Whoo hoo! Big deal! They've been doing movies where things pop up at you since the 50's. It wasn't impressive then and it's not impressive now. And I for one do understand why WeirdRaptor doesn't think 3D looks "amazing". Because it's a stupid, overrated, overblown, overexposed fad that people hype up as the most impressive cinematic experience of your life. Well if that's the case then I should have enjoyed Avatar a lot more than Dark Knight. Well guess what? I saw Avatar in 3D and Dark Knight in 2D. Guess which one I had better time at? That's right: Dark Knight.

To me 3D shows that audiences today care no longer about the quality of the movie and would rather watch an ass farting on screen for two hours. Perfect example: The Last Airbender. Awful, AWFUL movie yet is somehow making a profit. Originally shot in 2D, converted to 3D for Who-knows-why and people still go to see it in 3D despite numerous reviews saying how bad the 3D is. Proof that most people simply don't care anymore and will blow their money on whatever crappy brainless summer blockbuster comes out. I just wonder how long it will be until Ass: The Movie becomes a reality...In 3D!!!!!!

[Malte279]

Everybody take it easy!
Some sound like you were personally blaming one another for whichever of the two options you dislike
On something that is so much a matter of personal taste it really ought to be possible to agree to disagree rather than making it sound like any personal feud.

[Clawandfang]

Well guess what? I saw Avatar in 3D and Dark Knight in 2D. Guess which one I had better time at? That's right: Dark Knight.

Well, that's one thing we can agree on. Dark Knight was a much better film. I'll be the first to freely agree that good plot is far, far more important than good looks (although Dark Knight wasn't exactly shabby!), but that doesn't mean visuals don't have their place. All I'm saying is that if we could combine the two then we'd be rocking.
If you don't like the way 3D looks right now then....well, okay. It's nowhere perfected yet, but I have hopes that one day they will bring it up on par with regular vision; at which point I'd assume you'd be happy with it?

Back on topic: I'd see LBT in 3D, but I highly doubt it would work. The animation style....you know. I wince at just the current CGI-ish scenes. Doesn't really work for me.

[WeirdRaptor]

They've been saying that steps have been taken to ake to 3D stop hurting people's eyes for years. I don't buy it. How can I believe they don't look amazing? Because they literally hurt to look at for me. The reason I'm so vehemently opposed to it hear is because of that. If 3D takes over the theaters completely, I'll quite going to them, because: A. I wouldn't be able to afford the overpriced ticket. And B. I'd probably go blind!

[Littlefoot1616]

As with most people. The fact that LBT was back in cinemas would be my reason for going to see it. I wouldn't go for the 3D aspect of it all coz that doesn't really interest me that much. It's a nice touch but very few movies have done it well. Just the mention of LBT being back on the silver screen would be enough to get me in line but I'd probably pass on the need for the nerdy plastic lenses    

[Animeboye]

I can't stand 3D not just because it hurts my eyes, which it does. Being nearsighted, my vision's already not too great. But I also can't stand 3D because I see it as a shield most directors use to cover up the fact that their movies more than likely suck. Case in point, The Last Airbender, originally shot in 2D, then converted into 3D. Sucked. Clash of the Titans, shot in 2D, converted into 3D. Haven't seen it but it sounds sucktacular. I'm glad that there are directors out there like Chris Nolan and even Michael Bay to a lesser extent, who know  they don't need 3D to make their movies good. Michael Bay even said he sees 3D as a gimmick too so for that I applaud him *wishes there was an applauding smilie*

I'll never understand why people would want to waste seven extra dollars on a 3D movie when they can see the same movie in 2D at a much cheaper price. Just like WeirdRaptor said, if they ever end up showing movies in only 3D, then I will never step foot in a theater again.