QUIT SAYING THE 3D WAS CRAP!!! - Spy Kids 3: Game Over (2003) Discussion

[–] ledatru 21 years ago

Your logic is flawed. The next time you see a crappy movie, don't complain unless you're a movie director. The next time you play a mediocre videogame, don't whine because, guess what, you don't have the resources to make one.

- snake92589

reply

[–] Garock 21 years ago

I agree with you snake ,100%,This guys keeps blasting everyone in the boards who didn't like the stupid movie.He is an asswipe. THE MOVIE 3-D IS CRAP B***H,GET OVER IT ,crying baby

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] silverravenswings 21 years ago

I don't think that the third movie was a piece of crap. What was really a piece of crap was the 3-D part. I don't know about you, but it killed my eyes. But looking at the movie as just a movie and forgetting about the 3-D, it was really good and stuck to the goal of being designed for kids.

reply

[–] kandis1 21 years ago

OH man, i forgot about the tremendous HEADACHE I HAD, with those glasses irritating my nose......or was it the lack of sense in the plot. The movie was stupid all around, seeing it as a movie is just as bad. It goes up there with From Justin to Kelly and Gigli

Death Awaits You

reply

[–] edd-9 20 years ago

EXCUSE ME BUT IF YOU CARE TO READ THE 3D SETUP, YOU WILL KNOW IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE VIEWED ON A COMPUTER. IF YOU HAVE A DVD ROM AND SOFTWARE I SUGGEST YOU GO OUT GET THE MOVIE AND TRY AGIAN. YES THE 3D WAS CRAPPY ON THE TV, BUT PLAY ON YOUR COMPUTER AND A WORLD OF 3D AWAITS YOU, IT'S AWSOME ON THE COMPUTER AND IT REALLY WORKS. BESIDES MOST OF THE WORLDS POPULATION ARE COLORBLIND AND THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE 3D, IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW YOUR EYES ARE SET. THE STORY, WELL WHO CARES IT'S THE 3D THAT'S THE BEST PART, TRY IT YOU WILL NOT BE DISSAPOINTED, OH AND REMEMBER TO BE IN A REALLY DARK ROOM IT ADDS TO THE EFFECT, CHEERS..........

reply

[–] justinlesamiz 19 years ago

"MOST OF THE WORLDS POPULATION ARE COLORBLIND"

not only did you user "ARE" instead of "IS" but WHAAAAAT??????

you've got to be the dumbest person i've ever come across if you believe that most of the world's population is colorblind..

- www.therightclique.com -

EAT MORE COPS

reply

[–] ScaryMoviesFreaks 21 years ago

Now we are not exactley areeging with crazycatam people have a right to there opion but GET OFF THE BOARD IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT

Sarah and Cameron

"If only if only" the woodpecker sighs

reply

[–] kandis1 21 years ago

No.

Death Awaits You

reply

[–] nike738 21 years ago

Y? if we don't like it we have as much right as you to diss it. THIS IS A MSG BOARD and we're allowed to discuss it so idiots like you should get out of our way.

reply

[–] coggibird 20 years ago

ABSOUTELY I TOTALLY AGREE ReileysFan12

reply

[–] biagiottin 21 years ago

um... I liked this movie, but I'm a teen, I'm sure adults have a different view. The 3D didn't bother my eyes at all, actually. The effects were cheesy, but they were OK 3D. Sure, some of them didn't work and they repeated the same effect over and over (something being thrust at the good guy, misses the shoulder), but it was fun! I think Robert Rodriguez had a great idea making a 3D sequel, and it isn't half bad.

I think that crazecatam needs to get a grip, though. Please don't yell at me...

reply

[–] NoJusticeWithoutSin 21 years ago

The movie was cool plain and simple... the 3D was bad... who cares? I never went to the movie because of the 3D... i went cause I liked the first 2... and I like this one.... It was the worst of the 3 though but it was still cool.

reply

[–] ay-c 21 years ago

It would have been better if they kept GOOD 3D in universal studies with the Terminator ride (awesome by the way) not in our theatres out to destroy our eyes.

reply

[–] secretagnx7 21 years ago

perhaps they should have used polarized lighting like they should have, instead of the cheapass blue red knock off.

reply

[–] rocker_critic_of_horror_part2 21 years ago

I am not saying that the 3-d was bad or anything, its just that in the commercial were it shows Carmen with her claw pointing out of the screen and it shows it reaching above the audiences heads all the way to the edge of the theater.But when I say it, it just barely popped out of the screen.That was a big dissapointment.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stiv-7 21 years ago

Let's get one thing perfectly clear here. There are logistical reasons for not releasing SK:3D in a polarised format (lack of screens capable of playing polarised 3D, expense involved in converting to polarised 3D, customers unwilling to pay the cost of an IMAX 3D release, etc.). 3D has rather unfairly made this film the whipping boy for those who don't want to jump on the Gigli bashing bandwagon. There are far worse movies out there, guys. For the record, I took my son and he absolutely loved it. If you don't think you'll like it, save your pennies for Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

reply

[–] Martinwaldie-1 21 years ago

Well, I guess the movie wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible. It had a weak plot from the start, somebody just fire those writers. And the 3D was ok, but it could have so much better. I have Spy Kids 2 on DVD and in the special features there's something called Robert Rodriguez's 10 Minute Film School. In that, he tells you all ways he cut corners. Like the volcano part. The bit were Carmen and Juni were hanging off was shot in a parking lot and it was only about 3 feet wide, the rest was added digitally. And, when Mom and Dad are in the sub, it looks like there is 2 control panels. But all they did was shoot Antonio in the seat doing his part and then did Carla doing her part. All they did was flop Carla to make it look like they looking at eachother. That is just two of the ways Robert likes to save money on building sets; he only builds what the camera will see. So, ideally, that's what he's done with 3D. He used a really cheap method of red and blue glasses and well, its just doesn't that good. I think Robert was emphasising too much on the 3D and not on the script.

reply

[–] SherlockJr 21 years ago

I read an interview with RR and he mentioned that this was not a true sequel but another story in the SK universe, hence the absence of Carmen and most of the family until the end of the film. It will be the last SK movie, however. As for the 3-D being crap. Everyone is spoiled by the Hi-Res 3-D used at Theme Park attractions and IMAX, however, those require 2 (count 'em) 2 projectors to make the images appear more clearly. Very few theaters are equipped for that, and since the movie was to have a wide release, Lo-Res 3-D was implemented. IT WAS NOT BAD AT ALL. Sure, your left eye gets tired from looking the red lense, but take your glasses of for a second and VOILA, all better. A lot of people are missing the point "The stuff didn't look like it was flying out" etc. The best thing about 3-D is the depth of field you get, i.e. objects in the distance that make it look like you can see far off into the horizon, to this effect, RR did a great job. The movie was not great, but it was no Godfather III either, and I think it's taking an unfair amount of criticism. At least someone is trying to make a family film where adults can actually have a good time as well. Also, it's great to see great actors like Ricardo Montalaban doing something besides commercials for bad cars! Not to mention the fact that there are MANY positive messages for kids in this movie...

Just my opinion, however.

"Wait...where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!"

reply

[–] MerrysMushrooms 20 years ago

I liked this movie but I felt SO nauseous after I saw this. I did like Elijah's cameo though :)
And I preferred the other two to this one because they had more of a plot and not just full of special effects.

"I never want to see you"
"Then why did you follow me?"
-The Ice Storm

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mdigirol 20 years ago

thts really 2 words....because crap and crap are the same word

I love the smell of commerce in the morning.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aryaelvenlady 20 years ago

You sure do love that word, don't u?!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dmc102 20 years ago

Hey mate, I'm not saying the 3-D was crap in this movie, because it wasn't. It was equally as good as any 3-D movie produced today. The thing is, everyone's perception of 3-D is different. Many people cannot see Anaglyph 3-D properly. It's all to do with the distance between your eyes and the colour systems in your retina. I am a 3-D researcher, and the Anaglyph 3-D system has been pretty much outlawed in terms of motion pictures. If the movie was presented in Polaroid 3-D, the effects could be viewed properley for more people.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dmc102 20 years ago

Do you know anything about 3-D? Of course it is hard! You don't use a special type of film at all, you use a special type of camera. Even if the 3-D is photograped perfectly, the effect can be ruined afterwards due to poor viewing systems (i.e. red/blue). Oh yeah, how can it be a special type of film when Spy Kids 3-D was shot in Digital?

reply