# John Carter



## fanuminski (Apr 11, 2008)

My wife and I saw this movie (in 3D) yesterday. We both decided
after hearing about all the money invested in this one 
that we would see it in 3D to get "the most" out of the big screen theater
experience. 
7.1 Dolby sounded quite good - but I wish I could
say that about the movie itself. 
Maybe if I read the Edgar Rice Burroughs book(s) that
it was based on I would have enjoyed and understood it more.
Dragged in parts, convoluted story and 
I found that the 3D was subpar, imo. (Sometimes, I peeked
from under the 3D glasses and the screen image seemed almost the same 
whether I had the glasses on or not.)
We were just looking for some escapism though, and for the most
part, it did that. 
However, rental, imo


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

I wish the movie industry would figure out that post-produced (i.e., computer simulated) 3D stinks (with some few exceptions)! This is one factor that's driving audiences away from 3D. A lot of people still remember the bad 3D experience they had with "Clash of the Titans" or some similar movie done in PP 3D. Of course, it costs a whole lot less to do PP 3D so that's the driving factor for the studios, but they aren't doing themselves any favors in the long-run. When I see a PP 3D feature, I usually opt for the 2D version of it if it's available. When you combine a PP 3D show with a weak plot and execution, it's a double whammy for the show-goer, and like you, they will think twice about going to the next one.
Thank's for the heads-up on "John Carter". I had high hopes but will add it to my Netflix queue and save some money.


----------



## Richard in SF (Mar 8, 2009)

Aaah, I thought that the amount of money spent meant that it was "real" 3D. How can you tell ahead of time that it is phoney (Or is that what PP stands for?):dontknow:


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

The movie industry can spend a lot of money and still not shoot the movie in actual 3D (sometimes referred to as "native 3D"). Avatar was shot, for the most part, with dual camera 3D which is the real thing. To most movie companies, it makes more $$$ sense to shoot in 2D with one camera, work in the effects, and then computer process (post-process) the file to get the dual images, which takes some skillful work and involves some shortcuts which can compromise the look of the finished product. Unfortunately, this process can be done poorly, as was the case with "Clash of the Titans" (and others). If enough effort is put into it, it can look pretty good but it will never look quite as good as a well done feature in native 3D. I don't think it's advertised at all (would you advertise it??), although you usually can find out in some of the pre-release press given a pending 3D feature.

Most all animated 3D (e.g., Puss in Boots) is like the real thing since it is created in a computer which holds 3D artwork and can generate views from two virtual cameras to get the dual images for 3D. There is little added cost factor in this case other than the increased rendering time.


----------



## Richard in SF (Mar 8, 2009)

Ahh-so. Another meaning for pp, thank you. I knew about 2 1/2D, but I guess I didn't realize how prevalent it is. And since "JC" is such a big, expensive sci-fi action thriller, I just assumed it was 'the real thing'. Silly me.
I'm VERY new to the home theater version of 3D, in fact, I'm still a virgin. My 3D set will not be delivered until Monday.
Thanks for the education,
Richard


----------



## ozar (Feb 12, 2012)

I just finished watching the 2D version of _John Carter_ on blu-ray and was totally underwhelmed with it. I'll try watching the 3D version this weekend to see if it might change my mind.


----------

