The Amazing Spider-Man Spider-Man 4 in 3D?

[Mogwai]

if it doesn't take away from the story (like adding scenes just to 'wow' viewers), then yes.

 

[American_Hobo]

3D movies suck.
No 3D.

 

[ross2287]

I vote 'No'. Wait until Cameron does it, and then see if it's actually all that it's hyped up to be. I've seen most of the 3-D movies, and judging solely on the technology, I think it's a distracting gimmick at best.

The whole depth perspective is only true to a point. Yes, objects pop out at you, but it's a very limited execution. There's basically background objects which are flat, and then the foreground objects which pop out. There's only 2 levels of depth. That's like only having the primary colors in a movie. Hardly an improvement over B&W.

It's the equivalent of those pop-up story books you read as a kid. Doesn't come anywhere close to depicting true perspective that immerses you into the scene. It's just distracting.

This is how I feel. It hurt my eyes while I was watching Beowulf and since I wear glasses, it's a ***** to take them off to put the 3D ones on and vice versa.

Leave 3D in the 70s and just worry about making a damn good Spidey film.

 

[Crazy Spidey]

It's just what i think about 3d.
No way because it won't be spiderman style you know? I loved the old films and whenever I have time I watch them to see if i find sth new! But in 3D it won't be fun anymore! THink about he would look too unreal!

 

[Cyma]

I’ve never experienced 3-D movies other than Spy-Kids 3-D on my TV screen. And it just looks…..awkward. If an IMAX cinema is needed for the full 3D experience, then won’t it be ruined for us folks who don’t have one?

 

[Episode29]

Heck, even Coraline, which was probably showed the most flawless use of 3D thus far, hardly needed it to tell its story. You could have shown the film in 2D and it would have been just as beautiful, minus the minor headache and eye-blurring. Thus far, the only way 3D has helped anything is boosting business for lesser works (Monsters Vs. Aliens, My Bloody Valentine, Journey To The Center Of The Earth).

 

[Adrian89]

I can't believe they are even considering this crap! Soon all movies will end up being in 3D and all the realism will actually die!

So lame!!! I hope it won't happen.

 

[Spider-Ranger]

If they're really going to use 3-D then I want them to create new spidey-web-slinging sequences rather than re-use the ones from the first three films...

 

[Spidey0]

I'm actually against the idea as well. It didn't quite work for the TMNT movie imo. If they were to go for realism incripted into 3-D, then they might not have any luck finding any good engine to make it. The best engine right now is the one used to make many of the Square Enix games but that's far too expensive. Although I was really impressed by how they rendered CG in SM 2, SM 3 was okay but they had a little too fun with Spidey swinging around in the black suit.

An animated movie would be pretty interesting though, but I know that's not Raimi's style.

 

[dark_b]

in 2009 when they say 3D they dont mean the old 3D . this is now something new.

only tim burton is stupid enough to make the old 3D .

 

[Immortalfire]

I say no. I think that 3D is way passe for one, but also because I can't see 3D stuff...bad eye.

 

[SpideyTheBest]

No.

'Nuff said.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Christ no.

And no again.

3D is still a gimick no matter which way you put it.

 

[TheScarecrow]

The only time I think it would ever work is if you had Mysterio as a villain. If that's the case...maybe. If not, no way. Too distracting.

 

[Adrian89]

in 2009 when they say 3D they dont mean the old 3D . this is now something new..

It doesn't matter. The answer is still NO!

 

[Crazy Spidey]

back to the roots!

 

[GoldGoblin]

3-D is a bad move for this movie.People aren't gonna want to pay more just to see it in 3-D after they remember how bad part 3 was.Just give us a good story,good character developments,no cheese,more action,that's what this movie needs to focus on to redeem itself.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Christ no.

And no again.

3D is still a gimick no matter which way you put it.

yeah...3D is a gimmick! we live gimmicky lives in a gimmicky 3D world. the only video games that aren't gimmicky now-a-days are the ones that are still 2D and you know when Cameron started using 3D programs for effects in film? that was totally gimmicky also!

i can understand SOME complaints (not having good vision, focus on story first, this should be the director's decision/not the studio's) but 3D is about as much of a gimmick as color and sound were when they got introduced. in fact, there were a lot of the same complaints when they first introduced audio but most humans with 2 eyes have depth perception so it's only natural for us to want to see depth perception in our movies the same we we want to see color and hear sounds.






now i'll say this much...a good script is infinitely more important to SM4 than 3D can ever be, so they should go through the trouble and make sure that they have a good script before they go through the trouble of making it a 3D film. however, if they happened to accomplish both successfully then i would definitely love to see SM4 in 3D.

 

[Retroman]

If it was done in a fashion similar to Superman Returns, where selected scenes were highlighted, it might make some action sequences a bit more spectacular spidey, but it's not something, I'd get particular excited over.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the comments, but I doubt beyond all hell that I'd be willing to pay a premium for it.

I think/hope it's going to be something like on Superman Returns and Harry Potter where only select sequences are shown in 3D not the entire movie.First and foremost though the priority should be to create a great script and film.

Incidentally there were rumors that 3D was been considerd for the 3rd film too.

 

[Dragon]

yeah...3D is a gimmick! we live gimmicky lives in a gimmicky 3D world. the only video games that aren't gimmicky now-a-days are the ones that are still 2D and you know when Cameron started using 3D programs for effects in film? that was totally gimmicky also!

i can understand SOME complaints (not having good vision, focus on story first, this should be the director's decision/not the studio's) but 3D is about as much of a gimmick as color and sound were when they got introduced. in fact, there were a lot of the same complaints when they first introduced audio but most humans with 2 eyes have depth perception so it's only natural for us to want to see depth perception in our movies the same we we want to see color and hear sounds.

Nah... It's a gimmick. While, sure initially some saw sound and color as gimmicks, their effectiveness was soon evident. Early films like the Jazz Singer, The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind showed how these inventions could enhance a film. Although at the same time there are many works of silent film and black & white that are great masterpieces and had no need for color or sound. Indeed, there are examples of films shot in black and white that would have not been as good had color been used.

However, 3D technology has been available for more than 50 years and not a single film can be said to have been made better because of it.

Yes we see depth. But film is not real life. It's its own language. We don't hear background music or zoom in and out in our field of vision.

 

[Crook]

I think 3D, conceptually could provide a revolutionary way of viewing film. But the tech isn't there at the moment. Cameron could change things so who knows. But right now, the films utilizing the method have been gimmicky to me. It has little to no improvement, which is why I'm not in favor of it at the moment.

It'll only escape that criteria if it truly provides a means of immersing the audience in the same way that audio did when it was introduced. And by that, I mean actually feeling like you're IN the movie. Somehow I think we're decades off from that capability.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Nah... It's a gimmick.

again...if 3D is a gimmick, then so are our lives. we live in 3D worlds with color and sound. naturally the next evolutionary step for movies is 3D since smell and touch are out of the question. a 'gimmick' is something that is used to make something stand out, but has little relevance. however, we're seeing more and more movies go 3D so it's obviously not irrelevant. plus, as more and more movies utilize 3D it will become less 'gimmicky'...thus, it's more of a craze than a gimmick.

However, 3D technology has been available for more than 50 years and not a single film can be said to have been made better because of it.

i honestly thought Beowulf was better in 3D. it's a great movie on it's own accord, but seeing it in 3D at the theaters really immersed me in the world...especially because the CGI was easier to believe when seeing it with depth perception than it is as flat images. i'll give you that there haven't been many movies that have benefited from 3D, but the method they've been using on the latest movies gone 3D is fairly new and definitely not the same method used for Jaws 3-D (red and blue glasses) which has been used as recently as 2003. up until a few years ago, that was the only 3D method and is inferior to the newest methods.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

According to a UK Film critic the entire movie business may be 3D by then anyway. It's a way to prevent pirating

 

[Batman137]

i don't want to wear those damn glasses either

 

[dark_b]

you can still watch those 3D movies in normal theaters. thats the point. its not like tehy will be made only for 3D.