Are 3D movies getting out of hand?

i was reading today an article why some theaters are only showing 3D versions.

if i understand right it costs them a lot a loooot more money to order and have both 2D and 3D movies. so now that they are seeing big numbers from Avatar and Alice they are buying only the 3D version.
 
DACMAN said:
What makes something "fake 3D"?
Click to expand...

Movies that weren't shot with 3D in mind, and were converted after the fact. Warners' hastily expanded 3D titles take up the majority of the "fake 3D" titles being released this year and next year.
 
To lazy to look so dont know if someone has posted it, it seems WB plan on rereleasing all the Harry Potter movies in 3-d.
 
SatEL said:
To lazy to look so dont know if someone has posted it, it seems WB plan on rereleasing all the Harry Potter movies in 3-d.
Click to expand...


I googled this just to see this.TO be honest it seems websites are drawings conclusions way to fast.
The original article
http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/03/2...hasnt-started-yet-producer-david-heyman-says/
." There's opportunity for the future though; six "Potter" films were released before "Deathly Hallows," and all of them have that epic scale which might made a 3-D conversion worthwhile.

"Those discussions haven't yet happened, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time," Heyman said in reference to converting older "Potter" flicks. Then he hedged. "You know what? I actually shouldn't say that. Who knows? It would be great. You can never tell. I hope so."
Click to expand...


It's just something that Heyman is thinking about and definately not something that WB is considering.
IMO i think it would be a bad move anyway because re-releasing movies never make enough cash anyway so to spend 15 ( or more) million to convert each movie only to see the movies making that amount in their theatrical run simply isn't worth the effort .
 
Last edited:
mclay18 said:
DACMAN said:
What makes something "fake 3D"?
Click to expand...

Movies that weren't shot with 3D in mind, and were converted after the fact. Warners' hastily expanded 3D titles take up the majority of the "fake 3D" titles being released this year and next year.
Click to expand...

Definately agree with the first part of being just not being made with 3-d in mind . I don't agree with the conversion part though.
Guys like Nolan make valid points of how shooting stuff with digital 3-d cameras have their limitations ( just like shooting stuff in IMAX has it's limitations.....)
Digital cameras cannot capture the resolution you get when you're filming with 65 mm film or the 70 mm IMAX stock. It's not possible at this stage. Hell even computers can't render images at that resolution . At least for now.
So i think that conversions are the way to go if you wanna have a 3-d movie with the level resolution ( and realism) as TDK does.
Again at least for now.
In that case a conversion doesn't make it fake 3-d.

But you need to take your time with the process. Personally i thought the 3-d conversion in Alice In Wonderland ( IMAX) and the last 2 potter movies ( also in IMAX) were very well done. I'm curious to see how Cameron's converted Titanic will look. By the time movie is finished , he'll have spend longer then a year on the movie so it'll be interested to see how that will look like.
 
what if he films with 65 mm and then wants to convert to 3D. how will the software be able to do this?

maybe convert a low 35mm resolution 3D version and then match with the 65 mm footage and make a matte that makes a difference?
 
dark_b said:
what if he films with 65 mm and then wants to convert to 3D. how will the software be able to do this?

maybe convert a low 35mm resolution 3D version and then match with the 65 mm footage and make a matte that makes a difference?
Click to expand...

I think that if they are able to create VFX shots on that resolution ( which certainly seems the case with Inception) , then the tech. should be there now to convert 65 mm prints to 3-d
 
matrix_ghost said:
I think that if they are able to create VFX shots on that resolution ( which certainly seems the case with Inception) , then the tech. should be there now to convert 65 mm prints to 3-d
Click to expand...
but the computers are very slow because the resolution is to big.
ILM had problems on TF2 and it was also very slow on TDK. and its not for the whole movie. imagine converting the whole movie.

i think it would be very expensive :yay:
 
Here's my 2 cents

If they make more 'good' movies like AVATAR in 3d that looks good in 3d and not like Clash of the Titans 3d
then I'll pay extra for 3d and will be okay with more 3d movies. I want the future and I think 3d is futuristic
Kids movie look awesome in 3d and I can't wait for TOY STORY 3 in 3D
so If more companys make 3d work and do it right...I'll go see it
 
I loved seeing Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon in 3D. Can you imagine Dial M for Murder in 3D, since it was originally shot in 3D.
 
Honestly, I'm not a fan of most 3D movies. While I did enjoy Avatar in 3D, in general, it makes my head hurt, and I hate wearing the glasses. I like the way the movies look in "regular" format. The ones I enjoy in 3D tend to be ones with amazing scenery, etc.
 
matrix_ghost said:
Definately agree with the first part of being just not being made with 3-d in mind . I don't agree with the conversion part though.
Guys like Nolan make valid points of how shooting stuff with digital 3-d cameras have their limitations ( just like shooting stuff in IMAX has it's limitations.....)
Digital cameras cannot capture the resolution you get when you're filming with 65 mm film or the 70 mm IMAX stock. It's not possible at this stage. Hell even computers can't render images at that resolution . At least for now.
So i think that conversions are the way to go if you wanna have a 3-d movie with the level resolution ( and realism) as TDK does.
Again at least for now.
In that case a conversion doesn't make it fake 3-d.

.
Click to expand...

converted 3d movies do not look realistic at all. It looks crappy. Objects don't have depth perception, they are just seperated from the back ground. a movie filmed in 3d is showing you what you would see if your head was right where the camera was.
 
AndThePickles said:
Honestly, I'm not a fan of most 3D movies. While I did enjoy Avatar in 3D, in general, it makes my head hurt, and I hate wearing the glasses. I like the way the movies look in "regular" format. The ones I enjoy in 3D tend to be ones with amazing scenery, etc.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel as well. I'll only go see 3D if the movie is made for 3D like Avatar and the upcoming Tron.

I saw the poster for Step Up 3D the other day. Does anyone still think they're not going to far with this 3D craze now? A 3D dance movie? What's next? Cheaper By The Dozen 3D?
 
10715kg.gif

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=65420
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=65421


make no mistake my brothers.........Sony and Paramount will tell you that their 3D is not as bad as Clash of Titans. they will lie.
:facepalm:
 
I think it is getting a bit out of hand.. I mean if its for something big then fair enough but when something like Green Hornet is gonna get a 3D release then.. it's a bit much isn't it?

Studios have seen it can bring in extra money so they all jump on the band wagon and start doing movies which normally wouldn't be considered or don't need or benefit from 3D in 3D...

To me a 3D release should be something a bit special... I guess with how easy it is to do with todays technology then it will obviously be more common but I think that's kinda the base fact in all of this - 3D isn't anything special anymore. They announce it and treat it like it is but it's all becoming a bit too commonplace.

Personally I'm not a massive fan of 3D anyway.. Well, the immersive type that Avatar is suppose to have pioneered, I don't really see the point of. I don't care about depth or immersion when I go to watch a film. When I think 3D or if I go to see 3D then I expect stuff popping off the screen all the time and things flying past my view... thinking I could reach out and grab that -whatever object it may be- flying at my head... not "oh look, that boulder looks like it's not sitting on the background, woop di doo".

I went to see Half Blood Prince last year at IMAX where the first 20 mins was 3D. They also had a 3D trailer for Christmas Carol. The 3D used in both the trailer and 20 mins was great IMO. There were sparks flying off the screen and all sorts. Then I went to see Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D and I thought the 3D in both was rubbish. Nothing jumped or popped at me, nothing I saw made me think "wow that's cool". Avatar looked pretty but it would have looked just as good in 2D and I didn't feel any more immersed than if I had watched it in 2D. So it didn't help me enjoy the film anymore than a standard viewing would have and the let down from that is also probably part of reason I thought the film was ****.

I also don't like the thought that cinemas might start getting in certain films in only 3D. If studios are gonna insist on making 3D versions of films then I don't wanna be forced to pay extra to see something in a style I may not enjoy. There should always be a choice between 2D and 3D.
 
The thing that pisses me off abot 3d is not the tech but the fact that the industry has now found a way to jack up ticket prices about 3 bucks in the span of a year or so.

I guess with 3d being the norm paying $15-20 for a film will be as well...


...and i was arguing just a few months ago how the option to see a films 2-d version will be eventually eliminated to the "oh you can still see it in 2d" crowd, well i think we've actually come to that time now.

I was going to see clash but the theatre i went to see it at i found only had the 3d version i wasn't about to pay extra to see a film which by all accounts looked worst in 3d than 2d. So i saw kick ass instead.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't have such a problem with 3D movies as a whole if more of them didn't rely on its 3D novelty to carry the film.

Story >>>>>> pretty pictures.
 
Way to many films going 3D for me. You could just hear the studio's rushing to jump on the bandwagon after seeing what avatar did.
I'm not opposed to maybe one or two big 3D film events a year, but it seems like everything is going 3D.
I mean really what's next, date movie 5 in 3D or something, or maybe a film(s) that's just equally as silly in 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Top 5 2007 Movies
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Cinemaman
C
E
3D saves box office
Replies
2
Views
812
Pink Ranger
Pink Ranger
A
Digital-3D Movies & Theatres
Replies
5
Views
740
Orko Is King
Orko Is King
Hunter Rider
Lichtenstein Directing 3-D Action Pic Relentless
Replies
3
Views
1K
Sentinel X
Sentinel X
Commodore Schmidlapp
Movies You've Seen more Than Once In The Theater
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
superhero
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,530 (members: 28, guests: 1,502)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,569
Messages
21,762,895
Members
45,597
Latest member
iamjonahlobe

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"