I have to disagree with you two about 3D. Some directors may do it just for money but I'd see it as a part of technical evolution, something what might be one of many stepping stones for next generations' technology.
When I design graphics I always have to think about how finished work will look on screen or paper. I can't even imagine what it would be like to design something if I wasn't bound to just those results, if I could bring image back and forth, closer to viewer, not just scale it around on some boring flat surface. And I can't imagine what kind of possibilities something so simple as 3D can offer for movie producers as well.
Or do you guys honestly believe that if humanity survives another 1000 years we're still stuck to view things from flat monitors ?
Three-dimensional is not something new, it's been out there for nearly 100 years, but it was so expensive to produce with technology from that age that no motion picture industry was interested in using it. It's not much younger than actual television itself and if we go back around 40-50 years from TV we find first moving images, made from couple of photographs which were "displayed" in fast rate.
I'm not saying it's a complete breakthrough and world's gonna live happily ever after, but it's a start.
Honestly, I have nothing against 3D and I gladly pay extra for ticket in cinema if movie is worth seeing as 3D.
Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:34 pm by 
. I don't understand how people actually like this live-action shit. This is why I prefer the CGI movies over these abominations.