Superman in 3D

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Please please no 3D. It sucks!!!

Another example of a guy hating 3D because its a popular thing to do.

 

[Astrodust]

Another example of a guy hating 3D because its a popular thing to do.

I'll play devil's advocate and say it's popular to like 3D as well. I don't hate 3D though. It's just a lot of 3D is done poorly. The Green Hornet was supposedly done with 3D cameras and looked terrible. The best 3D I've seen so far was in Tron and most of that was in the digital world of bluish tones so I don't know if that had anything to do with it. 3D is best when you don't notice it and can get lost in the movie and there are too many times I start noticing the 3D.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I have yet to really find legions of people who have the same passion for liking 3D than people who have passion for hating for the sake of hating it. Sure there are legit reason to hate it (as several cinematographer have mentioned it limits the look of movies), but few people actually know that.

I say don't hate 3D, hate the studios for irresponsibly pushing 3D for profit.

 

[Astrodust]

I have yet to really find legions of people who have the same passion for liking 3D than people who have passion for hating for the sake of hating it. Sure there are legit reason to hate it (as several cinematographer have mentioned it limits the look of movies), but few people actually know that.

I say don't hate 3D, hate the studios for irresponsibly pushing 3D for profit.

Well if people stopped buying 3D tickets studios wouldn't be profiting. Studios are essentially giving people more of what they want.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The funny thing is that less people are buying pictures for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

 

[Astrodust]

The funny thing is that less people are buying pictures for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

I don't mean to be the grammer police but I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first sentence. Are you saying referring to 3D movies? 3D theaters are always more full compared to their 2D counterpart.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The funny thing is that less people are buying tickets for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

Sorry. Fixed.

 

[Puckenstein]

The thing I don't like about 3D is that, once you get the DVD or blu-ray, you often notice the shots & angles they used to exploit the use of the technology, but you don't get the benefit of it. I know a lot of people hated Clash of the Titans, but I'd just like to use it as an example: I didn't see it until it was out on blu-ray, and there are a few shots that were put in for blatant use of 3D. It took away from the viewing experience. If you do it right, like in Avatar, then I could accept it. But, if they're going to put in shots & angles for the purpose of playing up the 3D, then I'd rather they just shot it in 2D.

 

[Astrodust]

The funny thing is that less people are buying pictures for movies before Avatar than after. The film industry in terms of attendance actually went down last year than 2009.

Still don't know what you are trying to say. Avatar is considered a 2009 film so do you mean before Avatar (2008) people were buying less tickets? Or are you saying that attendance for films has gone down since 2009? I think you are saying two things but they don't really relate to each other. 2010 was just as good as 2009 financially. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
I guess you are saying before Avatar and after Avatar people bought less tickets?

 

[Astrodust]

The thing I don't like about 3D is that, once you get the DVD or blu-ray, you often notice the shots & angles they used to exploit the use of the technology, but you don't get the benefit of it. I know a lot of people hated Clash of the Titans, but I'd just like to use it as an example: I didn't see it until it was out on blu-ray, and there are a few shots that were put in for blatant use of 3D. It took away from the viewing experience. If you do it right, like in Avatar, then I could accept it. But, if they're going to put in shots & angles for the purpose of playing up the 3D, then I'd rather they just shot it in 2D.

Clash is a bad example for your theory as it was never meant to be in 3D. It was added after the fact based on Avatar's popularity. I do know what you mean though. Final Destination and Piranha 3D are big offenders of this. The way I see 3D is that it adds to the immersion. In Tron you almost forget that it's in 3D cause it's done quite well.

 

[M.O.Steel]

every movie and their mothers are getting the IMAX 3D route. no reason to think this wont

i don't' get the hate either. every movie as a 2D version. which is cheaper. if you dont' like it, or it gives you a headache or hurts your eyes, then watch the 2D. i appreciated the visual effects and the atmosphere more when i watched AVATAR in 2D, but i can't deny that the 3D was fun to watch.

 

[KRIM]

i don't' get the hate either. every movie as a 2D version. which is cheaper. if you dont' like it, or it gives you a headache or hurts your eyes, then watch the 2D.

Except IMAX.

Besides, if there's 3D then the theaters are simply going to hold more 3D screenings as that returns far higher grosses. I've even seen some theaters hold nothing but the 3D version. It limits the choices people have, that is the issue.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Still don't know what you are trying to say. Avatar is considered a 2009 film so do you mean before Avatar (2008) people were buying less tickets? Or are you saying that attendance for films has gone down since 2009? I think you are saying two things but they don't really relate to each other. 2010 was just as good as 2009 financially. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
I guess you are saying before Avatar and after Avatar people bought less tickets?

Ah, but there was also this article from the same site.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3038

Financially, but that was because of the increased 3D prices and increased movie prices in general.

Before Avatar there wasn't any many 3D films being released nor were people really seeing many 3D films. After Avatar a domino effect occured in which nearly every huge film had to have 3D. It may or may not be the main reason, but it's probably turning people away, given the technology or the price.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

Count me in as someone who would actually WANT to see Superman in 3D. I absolutely love the technology behind it. I own a 3D TV (which BTW, you can get a 60" for around $1,000 now) and the 3D movies look great on it. Plus it adds a whole new dimension (pun intended) to gaming. If you see it as a gimmick, OK that's fine, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, the technology will continue to evolve and will get better over time. Granted there are movies that look absolutely terrible in 3D. Clash of the Titans being the main one that comes to mind. It was a last minute conversion and just looked terrible. They planned on converting Alice in Wonderland all along, so they had the proper amount of time to actually do the conversion the right way. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can replace actually filming in 3D, using 3D cameras, but there are some good, albeit a few, good conversions out there.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ This. Given that a lot of SFX in superman is gonna be green screen and CGI, I dont mind it as it's easier to create that depth you want in a film.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

I don't want them to do 3D just because it's the popular thing to do. It has to work with the story/film they are making. It can be a real pain sometimes...

 

[WarriorDreamer]

I don't understand the HATE for 3D, I mean if it's a choice out of 2D or 3D, of course I'm gonna choose 3D. People complain about wearing glasses but it's just like; God's sake it's just wearing a pair of glasses to make the visual experience more spectacular!

I understand using 3D just to draw in more people is kinda pointless, but if it really works for the story, why not? Zack Snyder said he doesn't believe in using 3D for the sake of it and he used it in Legend of the Guardians because it was right for the story.

Plus, there IS always the option for 2D, I can't see why anyone needs to complain.

 

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I don't understand the HATE for 3D, I mean if it's a choice out of 2D or 3D, of course I'm gonna choose 3D. People complain about wearing glasses but it's just like; God's sake it's just wearing a pair of glasses to make the visual experience more spectacular!

I understand using 3D just to draw in more people is kinda pointless, but if it really works for the story, why not? Zack Snyder said he doesn't believe in using 3D for the sake of it and he used it in Legend of the Guardians because it was right for the story.

Plus, there IS always the option for 2D, I can't see why anyone needs to complain.

Why nobody else can understand that is beyond me. Great post!

 

[mclay18]

Still don't know what you are trying to say. Avatar is considered a 2009 film so do you mean before Avatar (2008) people were buying less tickets? Or are you saying that attendance for films has gone down since 2009? I think you are saying two things but they don't really relate to each other. 2010 was just as good as 2009 financially. http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
I guess you are saying before Avatar and after Avatar people bought less tickets?

Yes, Avatar was a phenomenal success. However, it earned most of its money in 2010 domestically ($466M) -- it grossed around $283M in its first two weeks. The carryover into 2010, plus the carryover goodwill for Alice in Wonderland three months later softened the blow from ticket sales for other films.

 

[kyleman]

Well, usually I only post on this forum with a manip or a little comment here or there. I usually never have news because you guys are too quick to find out first! BUT (and you can believe me or not, doesn't matter much to me) I am visiting a friend who currently works for the visual effects company that did Avatar and is now working on Superman. They are indeed filming this movie in 3D.

There is also some interesting news regarding the filming process. They are filming many scenes similar to that of Avatar. Much like Cameron had a special screen camera where he could view a virtual environment realtime, sounds like Snyder will be going the same route.

Anyways, I will try to get more info. I hope I don't get in too much trouble passing this info along. Keep it on the down low . I'll be back with more soon...

 

[matrix_ghost]

Well, usually I only post on this forum with a manip or a little comment here or there. I usually never have news because you guys are too quick to find out first! BUT (and you can believe me or not, doesn't matter much to me) I am visiting a friend who currently works for the visual effects company that did Avatar and is now working on Superman. They are indeed filming this movie in 3D.

There is also some interesting news regarding the filming process. They are filming many scenes similar to that of Avatar. Much like Cameron had a special screen camera where he could view a virtual environment realtime, sounds like Snyder will be going the same route.

Anyways, I will try to get more info. I hope I don't get in too much trouble passing this info along. Keep it on the down low . I'll be back with more soon...

I'll bite.

The tech that Cameron used for Avatar spread quickly to other movies. For example , Henry Cavill next movie will be Immortals. There are conflicting reports as to whether that movie was shot in 3d or not but what i do know from the making-of videos , is that similar tech was used where the director could see in real time how scenes ( shot against blue screens) would look on screen.

I am curious though as to which studio is working on the VFX for Superman.
http://www.cinefex.com/upcomingfilms/upcoming.php?id=19
These are the studios that worked on Avatar.
Although WETA and ILM are top choices, i dunno if WETA will be available because of their work on Hobbit.

ILM might be available. As for other studios like Hydraulx , Framestore , they could certainly work on Supes but they don't have the experience when it comes to Superhero flicks.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, usually I only post on this forum with a manip or a little comment here or there. I usually never have news because you guys are too quick to find out first! BUT (and you can believe me or not, doesn't matter much to me) I am visiting a friend who currently works for the visual effects company that did Avatar and is now working on Superman. They are indeed filming this movie in 3D.

There is also some interesting news regarding the filming process. They are filming many scenes similar to that of Avatar. Much like Cameron had a special screen camera where he could view a virtual environment realtime, sounds like Snyder will be going the same route.

Anyways, I will try to get more info. I hope I don't get in too much trouble passing this info along. Keep it on the down low . I'll be back with more soon...

Niiiiiiiice!

Thanks for checkin in with that buddy. Same visual effects company that did Avatar is going to work on Superman and Snyder and company will be shooting in 3D? Great to hear if true and it makes sense!

Wasn't WETA and ILM the SFX company that worked on Avatar anyway?

If WETA or ILM wind up working on Man Of Steel, than I will be stoked!

 

[dark_b]

this is it. superman will be post converted hehehhehehehehe

http://www.slashfilm.com/clash-titans-sequel-postconverted-3d-time-embrace-decision/

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'd be surprised if Superman wasn't in 3D.

If you're gonna do the ****ing gimmick, at least shoot it with the ****ing cameras instead of that post-conversion crap.

 

[Dark Knight]

I'd be surprised if Superman wasn't in 3D.

If you're gonna do the ****ing gimmick, at least shoot it with the ****ing cameras instead of that post-conversion crap.

Agreed!