Reboot in 3d : Yay or Nay

[Webhead2006]

yea if its the director having a hand in how its turns out it would probably turn out to be a better thing. Then just some hack editor doing it for the studio with no hand in with the director.

Dark b i wasnt trying to say nolan will force who ever is director to do what he wants. We still dont know who is the director, and how much of a hand in producing nolan will have. All counting on when this reboot is filming compared to when he is shooting batman 3 and all that. Now sure who ever is the director will probably have their opinion on things. But with nolan helping out they would probably welcome his hand in shaping and forming this new film universe for superman.

 

[dark_b]

is Cameron even aware that not every director in hollywood has a 2 billion movie?

SPielberg,Nolan,Scorsese,Mann,...... that kind of director can choose if they will make a 2D or 3D movie. smaller dierctors wont have this option. so if a studio gives you a big budget movie then you will do it in 3D if they want to .


but it would be very nice if Nolan,Scorsese,Jackson,.... would have the balls to go infrton of the camera and explain how they dont like that they are trying to force them in 3D. they are big enough to talk about this. but no. sheeps.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

is Cameron even aware that not every director in hollywood has a 2 billion movie?

Right. He speaks as if these other directors have the same sway at a studio he does. Obviously, he can voice his opinion and not take orders from a studio because he has gained that clout. These other directors are not in that position. It would take all these other directors to band together and be in agreement to not film a project or have it converted if it is not their choice. Fight the studios together. And not have a situation where if director A chooses not to film a project in 3D than director B will step right in and take over the project. Director B has to have director A's back. The studio has to be worried that a project would be left hanging because no director is willing to take it on unless their creative demands are met. But in the end, this isn't very realistic. Directors have had to have their creativity compromised plenty of times even before 3D came around.

SPielberg,Nolan,Scorsese,Mann,...... that kind of director can choose if they will make a 2D or 3D movie. smaller dierctors wont have this option. so if a studio gives you a big budget movie then you will do it in 3D if they want to .

but it would be very nice if Nolan,Scorsese,Jackson,.... would have the balls to go infrton of the camera and explain how they dont like that they are trying to force them in 3D. they are big enough to talk about this. but no. sheeps.

On one hand you are saying Spielberg, Nolan etc.. can make the choice themselves if they want 3D or not yet you also say they should speak up because 3D is being forced on them. Which one is it? If 3D is not being forced on them, why would they step up and protest? You want them to step up for the "smaller" director and help them take on the studio? Is that what you mean?

 

[dark_b]

You want them to step up for the "smaller" director and help them take on the studio? Is that what you mean?

this is what i meant.

i have now a feeling that they are all quiet because they dont want to have arguments with the studio.

they didnt become big because they sucked producers coc...... they are big because they have talent and they are standing out of the commercial directors. they will get a lot of work even if they sometimes speak up and are honest.

look Nolan is maybe popular at WB but he will not force WB to not realese batman in 3D. so lets say that Nolan films the movie with normal cameras. then WB will convert the movie in bad 3D and theaters will(are already now) realese the movie only in 3D. so the only way to watch the movie would be in bad 3D(like Clash of Titans).

can you imagine all the stylistic and composition choice's destoryed by some bad 3D? its not anymore the question if the movie will be filmed in 3D or not. studios have a chance to convert every movie in 3D. and theaters want to realese only 3D movies.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

look Nolan is maybe popular at WB but he will not force WB to not realese batman in 3D. so lets say that Nolan films the movie with normal cameras. then WB will convert the movie in bad 3D and theaters will(are already now) realese the movie only in 3D. so the only way to watch the movie would be in bad 3D(like Clash of Titans).

can you imagine all the stylistic and composition choice's destoryed by some bad 3D? its not anymore the question if the movie will be filmed in 3D or not. studios have a chance to convert every movie in 3D. and theaters want to realese only 3D movies.

You are the expert on this subject, but why are you automatically assuming it will be bad 3D? I point to this quote from Cameron

"We're converting Titanic, but we're doing it right," Cameron said. "What I'm not a fan of is a rushed or slapdash conversion that's not done right. And, I'm certainly not a fan of conversion when you could shoot the movie in 3D."

If converting Titanic into 3D is good enough for Cameron, why are we assuming that the conversion for a Batman 3(if there is one) will be bad? Perhaps the Batman 3 conversion will be just as good as the Titanic conversion. Isn't that possible?

 

[Scarlet Spider]

You are the expert on this subject, but why are you automatically assuming it will be bad 3D? I point to this quote from Cameron



If converting Titanic into 3D is good enough for Cameron, why are we assuming that the conversion for a Batman 3(if there is one) will be bad? Perhaps the Batman 3 conversion will be just as good as the Titanic conversion. Isn't that possible?

Titanic is a thirteen year old movie. It's only option for a 3-D release is a conversion, as opposed to to shooting a new film in native 3-D, when the technology is at the filmmaker's disposal.

Like in the quote from Cameron that you posted, he's not a fan of converting a film to 3-D, when you can shoot it in 3-D. It's basically akin to shooting a film in black and white and colorizing it in post-production.

You can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it but they'll never look as good as a film that was shot and conceived in 3-D. It's as simple as that.

 

[dark_b]

you know Cameron is also a lot of times full of bulls.....he hyped hes Avatar game like it will change the future of games. i think i will not watch titanic again since its 3 hous long, a chick flick and its 3 hours long. maybe if i get the 3D ticket for free. i just dont belive that the 3D will look better then Alice.

for 3D converted movies you need to rotoscope a lot. i tryed rotoscoping a lot of times. it takes time . curly hair is almost impossible. trying to make curly hair in 3D is impossible. well you can try.........but you will fail. there was a scene in Alice in Wonderland where the camera roated aroud Johnny Depp. in the movie he has curly hair. it was an insult to my eyes. there was some deformation happening that didnt make sense. why? becuase its hard to make something 2D to 3D.

rotoscoping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z32h-b9-8Qw

and you need to build almost everything in close ups as 3D models. i want to see those guys to rebuild batman's cape or supermans cape in 3D. you know how a cube looks. and your brain knows how a cube looks when its rotated and when its visible under a different angle. you dont know how a cape looks in 3D space since it has 10000 of different shapes.

maybe if they would convert movies for one whole year i would have some hope. but less then 6 months? and i just know that they wont convert batman 3 for more then 3 months.


Alice's 3D was not the end of the world.maybe i am even overreacting. but for that kind of prices i can not support it.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Titanic is a thirteen year old movie. It's only option for a 3-D release is a conversion, as opposed to to shooting a new film in native 3-D, when the technology is at the filmmaker's disposal.

Like in the quote from Cameron that you posted, he's not a fan of converting a film to 3-D, when you can shoot it in 3-D. It's basically akin to shooting a film in black and white and colorizing it in post-production.

You can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it but they'll never look as good as a film that was shot and conceived in 3-D. It's as simple as that.

I realize this but my point was, if 3D conversion is so horrible as some people claim, why is Cameron bothering to convert Titanic at all? Obviously, he thinks the end result will be good otherwise he wouldn't be going through the process at all.

yfor 3D converted movies you need to rotoscope a lot. i tryed rotoscoping a lot of times. it takes time . curly hair is almost impossible. trying to make curly hair in 3D is impossible. well you can try.........but you will fail. there was a scene in Alice in Wonderland where the camera roated aroud Johnny Depp. in the movie he has curly hair. it was an insult to my eyes. there was some deformation happening that didnt make sense. why? becuase its hard to make something 2D to 3D.

rotoscoping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z32h-b9-8Qw

and you need to build almost everything in close ups as 3D models. i want to see those guys to rebuild batman's cape or supermans cape in 3D. you know how a cube looks. and your brain knows how a cube looks when its rotated and when its visible under a different angle. you dont know how a cape looks in 3D space since it has 10000 of different shapes.

maybe if they would convert movies for one whole year i would have some hope. but less then 6 months? and i just know that they wont convert batman 3 for more then 3 months.

Alice's 3D was not the end of the world.maybe i am even overreacting. but for that kind of prices i can not support it.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining. I figured that time constraints could possibly play a factor in this. Cameron won't be up against a deadline for Titanic, so if he chose, he could spend 5 years converting, whereas of course other films would only have a certain amount of months.

Nolan had mentioned this:

I think is an interesting development in movies or the resurgence of 3D. It’s something we’re looking at and watching. There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film. And so then you’re looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways.

Do you think there will be significant, gradual or no improvement in the post-conversion process over the next few years?

 

[Scarlet Spider]

I realize this but my point was, if 3D conversion is so horrible as some people claim, why is Cameron bothering to convert Titanic at all? Obviously, he thinks the end result will be good otherwise he wouldn't be going through the process at all.

It's not horrible. Like I said, you can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it, but it will never look as good as native 3-D. If your shooting a new film and you have the option, why settle for good, if you can have great?

 

[FlawlessVictory]

It's not horrible. Like I said, you can have quality conversions if enough time is put into it, but it will never look as good as native 3-D. If your shooting a new film and you have the option, why settle for good, if you can have great?

In the case with Nolan though, he won't shoot on video, only film, which eliminates native 3D right? The studio still wants their 3D film, Nolan won't shoot on video, so I guess they are left to compromise by doing the conversion. Unless Nolan has enough to pull, and we know he as a ton of it, to state he wants nothing to do with 3D and the studio obliges.

 

[Webhead2006]

well for me if 3d is to be the only game on the field in the coming years for films and film makers. i do hope it will become a more easier and cheaper process on shooting with 3d cameras, and i hope the tech for converting in post to become better and better over time. So it wouldnt really matter if it was shot in 3d or was done in post.

 

[dark_b]

Do you think there will be significant, gradual or no improvement in the post-conversion process over the next few years?

here is a video that shows how they are doing it. i remember i saw a video 3 years ago where they showed how they did the 3D in superman returns.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/video-how-imax-wizards-convert-harry-potter-to-3-d/

as you see in the video artist will allways need to cut out characters and all the objects that are close to the cameras. and they will need to recreated everything with 3D objects. they will always need artist to do this by hand. no software will do this automatic. make no mistake they will realese a software where they will lie that it does it automatic. but it will be fake. they are right now working on a TV that will be able to do automatic 3D for every movie, tv show and tv series. its fake and they are trying to get sheeps to buy those Tv's.

a lot of people said that the HP 3D as good. i didnt see it in 3D. but i remember the beginning of Alice where its 100% live action. some parts were not in 3D because they wanted to save on money. and there were 3 big crowd shots. sorry but it looked like flat cards in 3D space. it couldnt look different. we can not expect from artist to model 50 random looking humans with complex cloths and hairstyles and then match it 100% in 3D space.


will it get easier in the future? i think yes if in the middle of filming they plan for the conversion. they should take a lot of reference pictures and mesaure every set.


some intersting info about Alice in Wonderland.they used only digital cameras for filming live action. so the question now is why didnt they use 3D cameras?

 

[dark_b]

i found the superman 3d imax video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/157753/superman_returns_3d/

 

[dark_b]

edithttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/157753/superman_returns_3d/

 

[Willi Berg]

So here's part of the review of "Clash of the Titans" at AICN:

this stands as THE defining moment we watched 3-D actually destroy a film and stand testament to the terrible, terrible idea of adding it in post-production. It is an effect so bad that it is all most of us can talk about. I know half a dozen critics who watched half of the film blurry rather than subject themselves to the torment of this bastardized hack job of a 3-D render; the rest of us suffered in silence, occasionally checking out the shot composition by lowering our glasses for a moment, repeatedly. How bad is it? See it in 2-D if at all possible. Do not, under any circumstances, watch the 3-D version of this film.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44470

also:

As I understand it, the main thing one needs to consider while editing in 3-D is that no single shot can be shorter than 2 seconds. Any shorter than that and the brain doesn’t have time to adjust to the new 3-D surroundings and cannot properly process the information, leaving you confused and a little off balance if you cut away too soon.

One of the great things about AVATAR is that they went into the movie understanding this. You can have fast moving action, but it needs to be in sustained shots. Think back on the most stunning shots of that movie – they are fluid, but not rapidly edited. Instead they are more classically edited. Now imagine if those action sequences were directed by Paul Greengrass in full on BOURNE SUPREMACY-mode and you begin to get an idea of what watching action sequences in CLASH is like. There is a real, honest to god reason people like Michael Bay are resistant to 3-D – because it changes the way you are allowed to make movies. You have to frame them differently; color them differently; edit them differently. You cannot just take any old film and add 3-D to it, just like you can’t take any old Black & White film and colorize it. But that’s exactly what they did here.

 

[Timstuff]

That's scary. It's a shame that the 3D effect ruined Clash, but maybe it will be enough to discourage studios from adding 3D in post as an afterthought in the future. It's possible to do it well, but it costs a lot more money, and I wish studios would focus on maintaining a film's integrity rather than trying to cash in on the 3D craze without forking out the dough.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^COTT needs to bomb and have the general audience really complain about how shoddy the 3D is for WB to even consider rethinking their ways. All COTT needs to be is a moderate hit and WB will continue their misguided use of 3D. WB needs to take the hit to the wallet. That's the only language they will understand and that comes from your average movie going customer. Reviews from sites such as AICN won't be enough.

 

[El Payaso]

Wait, James Cameron is re-releasing Titanic in 3D besides re-releasing Avatar with 10 more minutes?

Boy, the guy really didn't take losing the Oscar well.

 

[dark_b]

^COTT needs to bomb and have the general audience really complain about how shoddy the 3D is for WB to even consider rethinking their ways. All COTT needs to be is a moderate hit and WB will continue their misguided use of 3D. WB needs to take the hit to the wallet. That's the only language they will understand and that comes from your average movie going customer. Reviews from sites such as AICN won't be enough.

i agree. it doesnt matter if every critic will complain about the 3D. if the public will not speak then its over.

i am writting over because batman 3 ,GL,superman,flash ,... will all be in 3D.


or maybe they wont be in 3D in 2 years since hollywood will throw out bad 3D movies

 

[Webhead2006]

yea like i said hopefully the whole shooting in 3d tech and doing it in post will become better and easier to work with tech in the next few yrs. I agree if you want the film to be in 3d. Either shoot the dam thing in 3d and all that. Or have the film markers on hand to make sure conversion looks good and it doesnt wrech the film if like above posters said it was done way after and can ruin how the film looks.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

"Titans" director underwhelmed by 3D conversion (Reuters)
Source: Reuters Mon Apr 05, 2010, 2:37 am EDT

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Louis Leterrier, the French director behind the Ed Norton version of "The Incredible Hulk" and "Transporter 2," conquered the worldwide box office during the weekend with "Clash of the Titans."

Speaking at the movie's Los Angeles premiere on Wednesday, he explained why he chose to remake "Clash" and expressed reservations about Warner Bros.' (financially sound) decision to retrofit the movie to 3D in postproduction.

Q. WHY REMAKE "CLASH"?

A. That is a question I asked myself. After "Hulk," I wanted to do other things, but they came to me and said, "There's this movie we've been trying to do for 12 years. Sam Raimi tried to do it; it's 'Clash of the Titans.'" And I said, "Guys, you cannot remake 'Clash of the Titans.' I am the biggest fan of 'Clash of the Titans,' you are idiots if you remake 'Clash of the Titans.' But then I thought about it and said, "If the Greek mythology door isn't opened now, it will be closed for another 20 years." "Clash" was an anomaly when it came out. And I love Greek mythology: the monsters, the gods.

And I went back to Warners and said, "Let me see if I can find a way into this that will change the movie enough to stay close to the original but make it more personal." I am a huge comic book fan. When I see a Spider-Man movie, an Iron Man movie, I don't want to see an exact copy of the comic book. I want to see a new interpretation. And that is the same with myth.

I found a way in, which was this: In the original, he (Perseus, played by Harry Hamlin) falls in love with the princess. Here, he (Perseus, played by Sam Worthington) deals with the death of his parents, and he has this thing that is unleashed inside him. It was something I could relate to. Because when I was 8, falling in love with a princess and going to fight the Kraken for love didn't make sense for me. So here, an 8-year-old can relate to a parent dying before their eyes. You would go do anything to make up for that.

Q. SO YOU MADE THIS FOR YOUR INNER 8-YEAR-OLD.

A. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And I am happy that people are not saying it's better or it's worse than the original one. It's exactly what I wanted. I didn't want to draw any comparisons to the original. I didn't want to make something exactly the same -- sure, Medusa and the Kraken are the same, but in the original, scorpions were almost nothing, Calibos was a big thing but here he is not. I met Harry Hamlin tonight, and I was starstruck.

And yes, it's for my inner 8-year-old, but it's for my inner 36-year-old. And my wife ... She said, "Of all your movies, this is the one I relate the most to."

Q. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE 3D CONVERSION? THERE'S BEEN A

LOT OF TALK THAT IT'S NOT UP TO SNUFF.

A. Well, what did you think? Be honest.

Q. WELL, TO ME, IT WAS LIKE WATCHING A VIEW-MASTER.

A. (laughs) It's funny, that is one of the things I was saying to them. Don't make it so much like a ViewMaster -- so ... so puffied up. Listen, it was not my intention to do it in 3D; it was not my decision to convert it in 3D. Now, people love 3D. People will go see it in 3D, and it will play in 3D; it's like a ride.

If you love 3D and the studio is giving you the opportunity to see it in 3D, go see it in 3D. If you don't like 3D, don't go see it in 3D.

Conversions, they all look like this. "Alice in Wonderland" looks like this. Remember the technology was not ready, so it's Warner Bros saying we are giving you the best of what we can do.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/titans-director-underwhelmed-3d-conversion-reuters

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^Judging by COTT's BO performance, it looks like WB's misguided use of 3D will continue. I really do believe they could care less about the quality of it.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea probably will flawless. Though hopefully now with the studios all a craze for 3d. They will either take the time to shoot a film in 3d. OR if it is going to be done in post. To let the film markers be apart of it and make sure it can be the best it can be.

 

[Captain America]

I'm not a huge fan of 3D at all, But it just sounds so perfect for supes, So I say Yay

 

[Jordacar]

Yay, go ahead. Supes 3D makes way more sense than Bats 3D.