Cool News
ROBIN HOOD 3-D??
Merrick here...
TheWrap has a quick piece about Hollywood's new love affair with 3-D. The article reveals that Ridley Scott is looking to convert his new ROBIN HOOD into 3-D.
Director Ridley Scott is breathing down the neck of executives at Universal to get them to approve making a 3D version of his new $200 million epic, “Robin Hood,” according to one person close to the project.
...says TheWrap HERE.
Michael Bay was recently asked about whether any of his films would be presented in 3-D - a singularly unnerving prospect for moviegoers. His response (via Cinematical)?
"I prefer the flat screen. I'm not jumping to do 3-D at all-it's a pain in the neck to shoot it and I actually like the flat image. I've heard that some people can't even see 3-D and, moreover, that a major side effect of watching it is feeling exhausted. Can you imagine how you'd feel watching one of my movies in 3-D?"
During Fantastic Fest, producer Jon Landau said that James Cameron is planning on re-issuing TITANIC in 3-D & may be looking to convert TERMINATOR 2 as well. A few weeks ago we learned that Louis Leterrie's forthcoming CLASH OF THE TITANS would be 3-Dimensionalized, and before that we heard that the ZOMBIELAND sequel would utilize the process as well. Like it or not, looks like this trend won't pass anytime soon...if ever. Can IRON MAN or TREK be far behind? There have been murmurs.
Stay tuned...
--- Follow Merrick on Twitter! ---
-
+ Expand All
-
smell-o-vision next...
-
in fact...I can't imagine watching your shit again period.
-
It'll come and go quickly. Just as long as Hollywood finds some originality and stops churning out these arsenumbing remakes, I can cope with 3D.
-
It almost seems like a lame aaron seltzer and jason friedberg project.
-
I usually give anything you do a shot. And I'm going to with Robin Hood.
So help me, if you screw this up with cheesy 3D, however, that's it. We're through, and I'm taking the kids. -
Pretty, pretty.When and if "Avatar" reaches $1.5 billion worldwide... then they can start tripping over themselves to begin The 3D New Order. Until then... (yawn) yeah, whatever hoss.
-
Why do we focus so much technological effort on communication and entertainment? Seriously, 75% of major new technology every year is one of those two. How about curing something for fucks sake.
-
you stay away from that flashy technological crap and keep focusing on the good old story. Oh wait...
-
a last minute add-on like what these projects seem to be doing. But if used wisely, planned at the heart of the visual design, using the most advanced tech, which Cameron is doing, then 3D will stick around.
-
at least how they are currently structured...rather than sell you some glasses for 3 or 4 bucks a show, then asking for them back...how about you being able to buy nicer 3d glasses you can use for all the movies you go to that happen to be 3d and add 2 bucks to each ticket. the whole 3D thing didnt add anything to Ferngully 2 in 3D or Avatar whatever you want to call it.
-
...that way it can suck monkey balls in an additional dimension and realize the totality of Bay's shittyness.
-
Well played.
-
I'm not a fan of the format personally, but it IS selling tickets, so why not strike while the fad is hot? I do believe it is a fad, but it does deliver an experience you cannot get at home yet. Look to see GREEN LANTERN, CAPTAIN AMERICA and a bunch of other genre movies dipping into this thing in the meantime. I will avoid the 3-D shows in the meantime, unless they ever get around to re-doing the lesbian scene from MULHOLLAND DRIVE- that's about the only thing I can think of where I want to be IN the fucking movie.
-
its NOT the DAMN GLASSES!
-
I showed him some demo rolls about 2 years ago, Sir Ridley fell in love with the look it offered. He would love to one day re-release most of his movies in the format. I know for a fact he approved some Blade Runner tests about 4 months ago, and everyone is happy with the results, so odds are we might see that withing the next few years (probabaly for the 30 anniversary)
-
the continued drunk talkbacking of JettL93
-
Dec 28, 2009 10:47:20 AM CST
This is all James Cameron's fault (and i don't mean Avatar)
by christian_bale_trashed_my_lights
Although it's certainly helped contribute to it. If Cameron hadn't developed and released Ghosts Of The Abyss, the current 3D revival would never have happened.Of course, it's also due to piracy and diminishing cinema ticket purchases. Hollywood wants to get those asses on seats, and the best way to do that is "You have to see it in 3D to experience it the right way... and that means coming to the cinema!"Now I've never been to a 3D movie. Is it really that much different? Is it as immersive as people say it is? I have trouble believing it.
-
I love it aesthetically as well as how it is pushing cinema forward in a technical sense as well. I've loved the effect every movie I've seen in 3D has on me...immersion. a more complete sense of realism and immersion. It's impressive, and I'm glad its clicking with audiences instead of driving them away. Avatar was the test, and it seems to have passed. People dig it. I personally love this movie. Not that I hope all movies will be 3D, that would be crap. But I'm not against it. What I'd really like to see is a straight up drama, with zero special effects or action, shot in 3D. I want to see the effect it has in that situation. Would it be immersive or distracting when its actual drama on screen? Can't wait. I hope this this Robin Hood gets the 3D treatment so we can see what a movie filled with real live humans looks like in 3D. Up til now its been animated film and horror movies etc. Avatar was half humans, half not. I want a down-to-earth drama in 3D soon
-
Saw them when I went to Avatar, I did. Nicer, with metal frames rather than chunky plastic. Was thinking of buying some but after having to sit through 30 minutes of ads and paying as much for tickets as a new release blu-ray there's really no point actually going to the movies anymore.
-
based on colorblindness. Yeah, some people can't see it, so we should just stick to B&W. Matter of fact, yeah, lots of deaf people out there, so trash that sound "gimmick" while we're at it. And while I'm bitching, let me say once again.. the time for deciding on 3d is NOT IN POST.
-
man you always manage to crack me up. no exceptions.
-
I'd vote its a truly strong possibility.
-
And as long as 3D is just a stepping-stone towards a full holo-deck-style experience, I say "onward."
-
Yes, it added to the Avatar experience, but I still didn't really like the movie, so what does that tell ya? Hollywood, focus on storytelling and not on cheap gimmicks!
-
... they used bows & arrows in that one, didn't they?
-
First of all you need to learn how to make a fucking movie. Don't put the cart in front of the horse. I hate everything thing I've seen from you. Your characters are so lifeless with retarded fucking dialogue. Lame-ass story all surrounded by choppy editing that's a clusterfuck blur-fest in 2D.
No I can't imagine watching one of your films in 3D. They're hard enough to watch in 2D.
Avatar proved that 3D looks excellent during all types of filming. I had no problem watching it in IMAX 3D. Actually I had a little vertigo during the cliff scenes. Which was awesome. It's suppose to be like that.
Actually I'm glad you don't want to do anything in 3D. You'd just be wasting precious equipment time anyway that a real director could be using.
So what's going to happen when the studio that finances your flaming turd movies DEMANDS that you film it in 3D? You'll whine and film it in 2D then have it converted right? This way you can handle the film shoot and concentrate on the story right...LOL!
-
Charlie Chaplin in..."CITY LIGHTS" in 3D!!!11!!
-
Dec 28, 2009 11:08:04 AM CST
a "gimmick" to get people into the theatres isn't anything new
by jettl93
I can remember about 60 years ago when the film industry came up with the concept of Widesreen to get people away from the new invention of TV and into the threatres. Well 3D, is the same thing only this time the film industry is battleing against the internet, Blurays, on demand and ilegal pirating to mention only a few of the current entertainment options.And this current revival of 3D won't even last long, i've seen what the next big thing is and it's crazy, like game changing crazy on so many levels. alot of the top directors in the wood are involved with it, G-Luc, S-Speil, P-Jack, even J-Cam has shown interest in this new thing
-
Avatar proved to me that 3D should no longer be considered a visual gimmick, but rather a new way to watch and immerse yourself in a movie. I was surprised to find myself most impressed with the 3D immersion not during action scenes, but in regular, boring old dialogue scenes. Being able to see fully into the scene in 3D really did bring me in deeper. Honestly, I want ALL movies to be filmed in 3D from this point on. After Avatar, 2D movies just seem kind of pointless now. Continuing to make them is like continuing to make silent films after the 'talky' was introduced. Agreed though, a 3D Michael Bay movie would be an abortion. The last thing this douchebag needs is a way to more efficiently shit on our brains.
-
This 3D thing doesn't work on me at all. It just comes out all blurry. I've tried different glasses, screenings and movies and they all come out blurred. My Brother in Law says the same thing too.
-
Yes, it really is that immersive, when done Cameron's way. I've seen some of the stupid kids movies in 3D and while it was kind of a cool gimmick, Cameron's use of it took it to a whole new level. It really is a significant portion of the Avatar experience. Look at it this way, you're watching a film about a guy who immerses himself so deeply into a sensory experience that it changes who he is. And your watching it via a new sensory experience that has the exact same effect on you as it did on the main character -- neither one of you want to 'leave' the new world you're experiencing.
-
Seriously... I would pay to see Star Wars in 3D... at least the original trilogy. Yoda taking the X-Wing from the Dagobah swamp will look very nice!
-
Dec 28, 2009 11:15:36 AM CST
When we start seeing porn in 3D, we'll know it's here to stay...
by harrycalder
And I'm not sure I really want to see porn in 3D...
-
I pretty much had the same experience with the film. Even though the 3D was very well done it didn't make the movie any better or worse. I will say that Camerons FX in 2D are just as impressive. Either way the movie was average at best and dull at worst.
-
has been delayed because they are making it 3d now. Therefore I don't like this process. If new films want to be released in 3d then they should bloody well make the effort and SHOOT in 3d.
-
watching one of Bay's movies in 2D. Forget 3D.
-
Or should we call this GLADIHOOD? 'Cause this don't look like a Robin Hood movie, that's for sure. It's GLADIATOR IN THE WOODS. IN ENGLAND.
-
I've seen this next big thing, but it's not a game changer at all. It's just another gimmick and you know it. Quite unimpressive too. I doubt you've even seen it, it's like your basing it on what you heard at the meeting we had in Orlando with George, Steven and James. James Cameron showed it to me while I was composing the musical score for Avatar, and I was like "not impressed but go with your gut James." and he did!
-
1.Mounting heavy 3-D cameras on tracks will not allow him the freedom to do all the shit backwards/forwards tracking shots he relies on.
2. He will have to think before he makes a 3-D film,that aint his bag baby. -
but i wouldn't change working with him for anything in the world
-
Dec 28, 2009 11:25:26 AM CST
Michael Bay: "I've heard that some people can't even see 3-D"
by ricarleite2
So he just HEARD that some people have sight in only one eye, or just HEARD how depth perception works? Either way, he is clearly an idiot.
-
I know period pieces can be a bit pricey, but does a Robin Hood movie, even one directed by Ridley Scott, need to cost $200 million? Sheesh...
-
Is it okay to convert Schindler's List into 3-D? Does it sound like an offensive joke? So why the fuck should we take 3D as a serious improvement on film, if it obvioualy cannot be applied to every single dramatic film without it being fucking insensitive? The same could be said about smell-o-rama. So it's eithe ra fucking gimmick, or the technology isn't spread out enough, thus allowing us to watch a holocaust film in 3D without guilt.
-
Perhaps i should check out this Avatar thingy in 3D.
-
Can someone explain how the fuck they can take negatives from an older film and turn it into a 3D digital version? Surely they have to fake it by ripping the backgrounds out and so on?
-
It was called World War II... Jerk
-
Yeah!
-
It was terrific in Avatar since it really expanded the world for you. I haven't seen Coraline, but I understand it was used to similar effect in that one, too. It will be used as a gimmick most times, but what can you do about that? If there's a market for it, so be it. I'm not going to begrudge filmmakers like Cameron or Scott an aesthetic choice. Imagine what would happen if the technology became more available/affordable? What if visionaries like Haneke (not a fan, but I respect his work) or Von Trier figured out ways to use it? Imagine if Kubrick had lived longer and was able to finally pull off Napoleon in 3D.
-
But I have a lot of respect for Bay right now. I enjoy 3-D, but I like it as a novelty. Honestly, I have seen a few 3D movies in the last year simply because they were 3D. I would have just waited for DVD if they weren't. If every movie coming out starts being in 3D, it won't seem special and I won't be willing to pay to see them.
-
and turning them into video games that you can't play.
-
Coraline has become the measuring stick I use for all 3-D experiences. It did not feel like a "gimmick" (things pointing at your face, like that one scene in Beowulf) and there were scenes that were simply amazing (the "other garden" for example) because they were in 3-D.
That said, it does sometimes make me sick (Beowulf did, Coraline didn't) and so I'm very reluctant to watch Avatar in 3-D since it's such a long movie. -
... of retroactively presenting movies in 3-D that weren't filmed to be so?
-
I had seen two 3D movies in the theater before I saw Avatar. First was Beowulf, and that was all gimmicks, all the time. I felt like it got in the way of the movie, which wasn't bad all in all, and had some pretty badass moments. I saw Up earlier this year, and while I still loved the movie, the 3D dulled the colors and felt more perfunctory than anything. Avatar was miles better than both in the 3D department. I was indeed conscious of it, but over time it became almost like a an artist's brush technique in a panoramic painting. The colors remained lush, and the action scenes were assembled with patience and wit, unlike the typical Bay-influenced trash or Greengrass, shaky-cam ripoffs we've become used to seeing. (Bay is right, although he's admitting he's an impatient, ADD-afflicted hack. Seeing one of his movies in 3D would kill brain cells.) Avatar's 3D really did enhance the experience, and I didn't even see it in Imax, just in RealD. That may work better for you if you're worried about getting sick.
-
No problems with it whatsoever. Beowulf in Imax 3D made a believer out of me.
Robin Hood however seems like a waste of time whether in 2D or 3D. -
Thanks for the tips. If you haven't done so already, I recommend seeing Beowulf in 2D. I saw it in 3D in the theaters and 2D at home on DVD. Seeing it in 2D allowed me to enjoy the animation (especially the rich details) and story a little better, I think. It was worth it to see it in 3D once, but it's not an experience I'd like to repeat.
-
with optical orgasms and all. Transformers 1&2 was like having pieces of glass and metal shavings rubbing, tearing, scratching on every blink.
-
3D is the necessary transition between 2D and holographic cinema. In the future be it 25-50 years from now, theaters will be just that. A theater, with a stage, back-lighting, scenery screens, and holographic images played out as if really on that stage. No glasses required. This is beyond 3D. Before this anyways there will eventually be "no glasses" 3D cinema. Do you expect cinema to go from 2D to holographic cinema, and skip everything in between? Everything now is needed to get to that point. It's just beginning.
-
...I don't really care if it's in 3D or not. In fact, I may prefer that it not be. The format suits certain films, but not all of them. And if the only effect it creates is the old school crap flying out of the screen at your face, I'll definitely pass. If it adds dimension, or depth, to the overall picture up on the screen, that's cool.
-
George Lucas is undoubtedly waiting until the technology can catch up to his vision for HOWARD THE DUCK PART 2: DUCK COLONOSCOPY.
-
If they can convert Clash and Robin in a few month, why they delayed Cabin In The Woods more than a year to do the conversion?
-
For something like Avatar, it makes perfect sense, as one is seeking to suspend disbelief...but Robin Hood? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I think Bay is a hack, but his movies are the kind you would expect to be in 3D...but talk about arrogance; his movies are shite in 2D, they'd be magnified in 3D...they make a crap load of money and I am sure Bay is sleeping on a bed of money, but let's not kid ourselves, he's an actioneering hack of a director - the louder the better is his motto.
-
...its a GIMMICK to get you to fork out an extra few quid e.g. Avatar is *only* on in 3d in my local so I have to pay extra to put on a pair of glasses that dull the colours and make me feel like I'm watching it through the arse end of a pair of binoculars - I'd go agin, but not in 3d, where's the choice?
-
... if it's more than just fucking arrows coming at your face, which I fear will be a major focal point. Scott could really expand the world of the Sherwood with the greater depth of field 3D offers, and the battle scenes could be even more intense and visceral.
-
Comicbookmovie.com (or something like that) was up until a few days ago posting speculation on some actor named "Jake McLaughlin" as being a frontrunner for Cap America. I could live with that casting choice--if true.
-
If Spielberg ever gets off his ass and makes it, I'm sure it would be in 3D at this point. Maybe Avatar was just the incitement he was waiting for.
-
...because they make my soul shriek and evaporate from their sheer banality.
-
Dec 28, 2009 12:51:40 PM CST
I cab respect Bay for that view. 3-D aint that great.
by thedannerdaliel
It`s actually a freakin pain.
-
no thanks
Thug Crowe in anything...
No thanks -
WTF is the point of this? Look, I get Avatar being in 3-d, the whole point of that is to literally transport you to another world. If Cameron could have done Smell-O-Vision, he probably would have. I respect that. But Nottingham Forest does not require 3-D effects. I fear that this will mean the further disintegration of more salient moviemaking issues, plot being chief among them. I do not approve.
-
HELL YEAH! When we start seeing drama's and the full spectrum of more mundane releases presented in 3-D its going to be a MARVELOUS thing! The next wave of 3-D isn't about shit flying in your face, its about better immersing you in the environment of the scene. I for one am looking forward to seeing some of my old favorites converted to the format to stick me right in the scene. Oh and 3-D for the home isn't really a pipe dream anymore either. By the end of 2010 you'll see a number of consumer level 3-D TV's and even a new 3-D Blueray standard come into being. The suits aren't just working on getting asses in seats out there but pushing 3-D at home as well. And for anyone born pre 70's I think we are all unanomous in that we feel that...ITS ABOUT FUCKING TIME! 3-D is here to stay!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Dec 28, 2009 12:59:47 PM CST
RectalBlowout & "holographic cinema" (LOTS OF PROBLEMS)
by manifestchaos
I hope you are joking. One of the fundamental aspects of film is its (two-) dimensionality. "3D" film has widened the 2D frame from paper-thin to something slightly thicker, but shots are still presented to us the same way. What I mean by this is Avatar looks very similar in 2D and 3D (I've seen both now, things just don't stick out at you or seem to retreat into the space behind the screen.)If we switch to some kind of fully three-dimensional holographic movie unfolding on a stage, that will be a PLAY not a MOVIE. If the "actors" are holograms moving around a great big 3D area, how the fuck do you do a jump cut or a close-up?? How do you do false perspective?? You are talking about DOWNGRADING the cinematic experience, not IMPROVING it.I am not a huge fan of 3D, but Cameron used it well in Avatar. To think that it is just one step in a logical progression toward some kind of virtual-reality cinema, though, is sheer lunacy.
-
That Scott is running to catch up with Cameron. Talk about the student truly becoming the master.
-
Avatar was the first 3D movie I've seen (well, except for Captain Eo at Epcot!). Sure, there were some 3D moments that were cool, but generally I thought it either added little to the experience or was slightly distracting. I thought the idea was that 3D was a cinema-only experience but I see that The Final Destination comes with 3D glasses on Blu Ray, and Avatar will too, I believe.
-
How does that work? Don't you need a special TV to render the 3D properly? I want regular 2D avatar for my collection.....
-
I both agree and disagree with your post. I agree with what you are saying in that the next step from 3D into some type of holographic medium isn't film/cinema any longer. It's virtual theater, a play. I love what you say about jump cutting and creating perspective. That is what cinema and the moving image on screen give us that nothing else can. However, i still don't think 3D is a bad idea. As it stands now, I think it does, in some ways, if done properly, enhances a cinematic experience. I know for a fact it did so, for me at least, in Avatar and Coraline this year. Monsters vs Aliens also benefitted because it made the movie partially enjoyable. Either way, I just don't think using qualitative terms like upgrading or downgrading cinema is appropriate. There will ALWAYS be true cinema, no matter how amazing 3D and holograms get. Real filmmakers out there will continue to do just that...make films. It's an art form. Painting has died off even though we have photoshop, etc. You're talking about creating a new medium...and whats wrong with that? I'd go see a "virtual play" in hologram. Maybe it wouldn't be cinema, sure, but if they can use the strengths of a new medium to tell new and interesting stories...I'm all for it. As I said before, I love this new 3D stuff. I truly and honestly find it more immersive. I don't think ALL movies should use it though, not at all. I'd like to see a straight-up drama with no SFX or action in it to be filmed in 3D, just to see how it changes the dynamic of true drama, but I don't want everything in 3D. If you can find a real reason to use it though, please do. Film has always been an adaptable medium that has changed and evolved since its inception.
-
"Is it okay to convert Schindler's List into 3-D? Does it sound like an offensive joke? So why the fuck should we take 3D as a serious improvement on film, if it obvioualy cannot be applied to every single dramatic film without it being fucking insensitive?"
So by your logic, we could say the same of color (even using Schindler's List in the question again).
I'm not suggesting 3D is the wave of the future -- although given the way the Blu-Ray industry is scrambling to implement it, I suspect it's more than a fad like Sensurround was -- but your analogy? LOGIC FAIL. -
As I understand it, the 3D enabled televisions are special. You won't be able to watch Avatar in 3D just by wearing glasses on any old tv. This past year I think Samsung or Sony released once legitimate television set that could be seen in anamorphic 3D, just because of Avatar: The Video Game being able to utilize it. Obviously, no one gave a shit. But next year there will be more, and on and on after that. The tv you have now will only let you watch regular 2D avatar, until you pony up for a new fancy pants set...which, lets be honest..not too many people are going to do. I think 3D at home will fail...3D at the cinema will be a massive success.
-
Converting anything other than CG movies from 2D to 3D is just plain stupid, you can't magically add a dimension to an image, most anything that would use such a conversion would be nothing but gimmicks (like the tire flying at you in Final Destination 3D.)
But Avatar proved that if a film is shot from the ground up in 3D, and actually shot in multiple perspectives (IE 2 lenses) it can be immersive, and not distracting, at least not for me.
They simply need to wait until the cameras and equipment are there that there isn't much cost differentiation to shoot 3D as opposed to 2D, as you can always quite easily convert 3D to 2D, you just drop one of the images. -
etc. the DVDs come with the red/blue glasses like 3D of old. Coraline looked the best on 3D BluRay, but it was beautiful in 2D also.
-
I was part of the first wave of VR in the 90s, my immersive chair was used in The Lawnmower Man - great chair, lame movie - and we were all attempting to make the movie/game/telepresence experience more immersive. It took me two NASA grants to realize that visual immersion requires more than stereo, since the stereo effect is limited to about 30 degrees field of vision. It is the engagement of peripheral vision that truly creates the visual sense of immersion in a scene. Peripheral vision does not need high resolution, because it reacts more to movement than acuity, but that sense of movement at the edge of vision is key to making you feel inside an image rather than looking into a window at it, as Avatar did for me. A further improvement is to reduce awareness of realspace, the external world. I did this with an advanced reclining chair that reduced physical stimuli to a minimum and
created a sort of disembodied awareness. But the third, and most important thing to create a sense of immersion, is the story itself. Nothing creates a more immersive experience that a well told absorbing tale that fully occupies your awareness. That's where Avatar scored. Flying those dragons took me away man. -
Avatar would have been better without it.
-
....just watch with the sound OFF and the closed captions ON!
-
I would have figured he'd be leading the charge on gimicky crap
-
They ain't getting my money.
-
I can't understand all the resistance to 3D. Human-beings have binocular vision. Why would you not want to watch the fictional worlds of films in binocluar vision?
There's a big difference between real stereoscopic images, and fake gimmicky generated 3D, but why are people allowing the crap version of 3D to ruin their opinion of good 3D. I really think anyone opposed to real stereoscopic cinema is nuts, and may as well walk around with one eye closed if they don't think the third dimension is important. -
but i guess i am of the mind that i don't know if it would add 'that' much to the experience. For examply, I am currently updating my dvd collection with Blu-Ray, and have to prioritize...Blade Runner, Alien(s), Black Hawk Down, the Dark Knight are all movies where you actually get a big experiential difference...Michael Clayton? Or the Insider? Not so much. IMO the otherworldly-ness of Avatar and Coraline help the 3d...whereas Robin Hood doesn't seem to hold that potential to the same degree.
-
...more fantasy type stuff. For everything else, I prefer 2-D. 3-D, as cool as it is, sometimes takes me 'out' of a movie. The images can sometimes appear blurred and/or 'flat', like a cardboard cutout. And please, leave Iron Man ALONE! NO 3-D! Avatar was great eye-candy and nothing else. 3-D was a perfect fit there.
-
Something is wrong.
-
Or was he patting himself on the back? Either way a 3D Bay shitfest sounds dreadful.
-
it probably wouldn't work for some films. I'm not exactly scrambling for All The President's Men in 3D. But I do think it could work for a movie like Robin Hood, especially the way Ridley is approaching it, if the trailers are to be believed. There is a bit of otherworldly-ness there, too, since it's set during the time of the crusades. Again, I'm not sure if Ridley is going to pull it off, but it could be good.
-
Seizure: The Motion Picture
-
with Scott's talk and Cameron talking about treating Aliens and T2 in such a way, it makes me wonder if there is a big difference in starting a film knowing its 3d or simply going post-production? It strikes me that it might be like Ted Turner 'colorizing' all the old movies he had the rights too...at the same time i know that sony, panasonic et al are really pushing 3d tvs hard...so maybe its not a fad. if Scott does go 3d, i hope he's edited Robin Hood a little less frenetically than Gladiator, as I think that style and 3d are at opposite ends of the spectrum...
-
Yeah, I'm not keen on going back to "dimensionalize" older flicks, and it seems like it's better to film in 3D from the beginning. I'm guessing that's not what's happening here. The least we can hope for is, as you pointed out, less frenetic action scenes.
-
I don`t like where this trend is heading. It is almost like when they were colorizing old black and white movies...
-
s'all I'm sayin.
-
Would it be weird to watch a holocaust film in color? No. There are several out there. Would it be weird to watch a holocaust film in 3D? Yes. Mostly because people would say "What's the point? Why improving on the visual experience, if the drama of the horror of the situation is the important thing here?" - Thus, 3D cannot and should not be used to improve the story and feelings being transmited by the film. The only reason 3D is out there and smell-o-rama is not due to the facts that 1-It works, and 2-cannot be used to simulate bad experiences, like bad odors. Other than that, what's the fucking difference? It's just something MORE. Would you rather watch regular Avatar, or smell-o-rama Avatar? Or 3D Avatar? It's just adding something else there, something neat but that does not complement the whole movie experience. And people are mixing up both, they are starting to believe a rich audio-visual experience is equal to a good film. Look at how people are sucked into Michael Bay films. Soon enough no one will be able to tell the difference, and movies will be reduced to "fast blinking lights, loud sound effects" with no substance.
-
At some point, all films will be in 3d. There is no doubt. 2d films will be as rare as black and white films are today. The only question is whether that will be a few years away, or decades away.
Life is 3d, and 3d films are a more accurate replication of life. Just as color was, just as sound was. It's not just a gimmick. If you're railing against it, keep in mind that at best you may delay it. -
Nothing weird about that at all. It could certainly improve the experience. It's another tool that the director may work with. There's nothing 'crass' about having depth of field.
-
I agree with your point. However, when films were being turned into Color from B&W, films weren't readily available. Therefore the original B&W versions were sometimes almost lost. Now anybody can get a 2D version of almost any movie out there. If a person hates the 3D version of Titanic, fine just get a $0.75 used 2D copy of it on Half.com Though, I agree with the basis of your point. 3Ding every successful Sci-Fi / Actioneer movie out there is a VERY BAD idea.
-
...is the first film to show that 3D can be the next step in the way we watch movies. Not something gimmicky, with arrows always flying at you or Moe poking you in the eye, but something that gives the picture clarity and depth. Game changing indeed. I don't mind the trend. That said (to quote Harry), I don't like the idea of going back and 3D-ifying older movies. Let the process evolve naturally.
-
I believe Shakespeare worked in 3-D.
-
other than entertainment? I was thinking about that lastg night watching Arnold on 60 minutes. California has a water shortage, while sitting on the pacific. I would have thought by now we would have an affordable way to filter sea water into drinkable water. So we can't cure cancer, can't produce water, but you'll be able to step into the movies.
-
...we may all end up looking like Carl Reiner after he used the Opti-Grab.
-
People with one eye, for example.
-
but i'm pretty sure i've seen the epitome of 3-D cinema w/ the rerelease of Toy Story and Toy Story 2. If you missed seeing these in 3D then i'm sorry for you.
-
what do I mean. You can't really the follow the mess on screen. Throw 3D in and your asking for trouble.
Filmmakers don't get that Cameron used 3D to exhance Avatar not as a gimmick. -
I have eye problems, and I have waited for years to see a 3D film, just by coincidence, and by the time I got around to it, my eye problems got very bad. Since, I have seen 3D films...3 this year, and I have been very disappointed by stereo vision. It just looks blurry and is distracting. Of course, my vision problems may be adding to it. However, in terms of Bay, I think he has seen Avatar, as he gave a quote complimenting the film, and most likely, he saw it in 3D, so one wonders if he was partly refering to himself having trouble seeing 3D, without specifically pointing that out. I for one, would have prefered to see Avatar in 2D...as 3D is simply distracting.
-
Maybe directors should focus on making better movies then making more money?
-
So, a couple weeks ago, Dallas Stadium was showing replays on their big screen in 3D... thought it was neat until I realized, look down and you wouldn't need 3D.
-
Watch any of the showreels on the left in the first link.
http://www.eyeliner3d.com/musion_eyeliner_showreels.html
http://tinyurl.com/yb2nq56
http://tinyurl.com/ycmytbu
http://tinyurl.com/ybqtolq
http://tinyurl.com/pk4ffx
http://tinyurl.com/ykwxesb
-
Predator. The jungle. The predator and its mandibles. The alien-vision. The Arnold. "You are one ugly muthafucka." It is after all, one giant B-movie done with A style.
-
I've followed everyone of Bay's action scenes with no problem. You can argue his merit as an overall filmaker all you want. That's a legit argument. However, you can't be honest with yourself and say Bay can't shoot an action scene. If you can't follow them, you might be the slow one, not him.
-
Not the studio and its stockholders?
I think we'll see the end of the midrange budget. The little indie films will probably stay in 2D, because a niche product mostly shown in theatres to get Oscar noms... that doesn't need to be in 3D. Seriously, I can see a studio not wanting to make costume dramas that don't have wide crossover appeal like a Pride&Prejudice&Zombies. -
What the fuck?
-
Dec 28, 2009 4:10:23 PM CST
"Can you imagine watching one of my movies in 3D?"
by nasty in the pasty
Yeah, like Bay's movies don't already give you a headache...
-
I looked at your link and checked out a holographic Prince Charles appearing at a press conference or whatever. What is your point? I did not say it's impossible to do holographic projection, I'm saying it's totally different to have a guy standing there making an announcement than it is to try and tell a narrative.Address these two points if you want me to engage in any kind of dialogue. (1) How does any kind of jump-cut work in a holographically projected "movie"? (2) How do you do close-ups? At the heart of both of these questions is the fact that what people see as the "logical conclusion" of current 3D technology progress is in fact a high-tech PLAY, not a MOVIE at all. I have no problem with cinema splitting into two different media, as someone else mentioned could happen, but it is impossible for 3D film to supplant 2D entirely as they are not equivalent and do not match 1:1 in terms of their technical storytelling vocabulary.It is colmpletely disingenuous to compare this to the evolution of silent pictures to talkies, or B&W films to color films.
-
just the beginning. The Prince Charles one is limited in what can be done. Anything that is filmed can be projected holographically. Not today but in the future. A close-up is no different. Take Prince Charles and put him in and environment and he'll look like he's there and it'll be 3D without glasses. Some or all will be a projected hologram. Give it time. There are no examples on Youtube yet.
-
next time you're in a 3D movie and want to do a realtime comparison between 2D and 3D - close/cover one eye.
-
is the next major revolution in cinema, you heard it here first folks!
-
Dec 28, 2009 5:27:29 PM CST
I'll go on the record, no Schindler's List with Smell-o-vision
by domi'sinnerchild
You've got to draw the line somewhere.
-
Avatar maybe. But slapping 3-D just because it's in right now is lame. This fad will pass and we'll be on to holograhic projection.
-
Imagine Bette Midler's schnozzle in 3-d?
-
3rd degree burns to the audience... hehehe. But seriously, I'm glad someones taking a stance on it. I love the way it was used in Avatar, but only Avatar and Coraline have used it properly so far.
-
Dec 28, 2009 6:10:40 PM CST
In 3-D, a steaming pile of shit can be right in yer face.
by royston lodge
Now THAT's technology!
-
Go deep. Go really deep.
-
I'm looking forward to the movie though. I hope there is more archery in it though. At one point I swear I saw him using a fucking hammer while riding his horse :-(
-
I've heard that some people can't even see 3-D and, moreover, that a major side effect of watching it is feeling exhausted. Can you imagine how you'd feel watching one of my movies in 3-D?"
well fuck, I can't even see the point of your movies and a side effect of them is also feeling exhausted, but also depressed about society. Thanks for staying away from 3D! Now all you need to do is stay away from any sort of recording device. -
Going from this quote: "Can you imagine how you'd feel watching one of my movies in 3-D?", I'd take from that he knows what a big mess his movies are..and likes it that way.
Must be the coke.
-
Or rather, he only had vision in one eye. As for me, 3D only works on occasion. My favorite shot in AVATAR was when they were waking up, floating in that endless tunnel of sleep-pods. But after a while the effect seeemed to wear off. The "mother of all battles" was kind of pedestrian. CORALINE worked, more or less; U23D had maybe three shots that really worked for me. Some undersea thing I saw REALLY worked, and gave me great hope, but I guess it was a fluke. GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS was literally unwatchable: every shot was a pair of blurry ghost-images. I had to get my money back.
-
I would like to see Russell Crowe throwing a phone in 3D.
-
2D will never die!
-
Its like im actually IN the gas chamber. I swear i could almost feel the jews climbing over me for that one last gasp of fresh air.
Schindlers list 3D KICKS ASS! -
In the words of J&SB ...
"This is a site populated by militant movie buffs...sad pathetic little bastards living in their parents' basement, downloading scripts and what they think is inside information about movies and actors/directors they claim to despise yet can't stop discussing. -J&SBSB"
-
And I'm not even totally sold on the idea of 3D itself. But I'd be first in line to see Aliens or T2 3Dized.
-
Great visuals, crap story. ZZZ
-
Aliens, True Lies, The Abyss and The Terminator in 3D. Age and not a huge box office draw. T2 would probably bring in enough to make a nice profit. But I think Titanic would make another 100 million or more. Depending when released. He said they converted about 90 seconds of Titanic and he said it looked fantastic.
-
Dec 28, 2009 11:16:34 PM CST
Is SS just being nice or has he lost his fucking marbles?
by rectalblowout
“Steven Spielberg sat next to me in a big 100 person theater at Sony today,” wrote Bay on his online forum. “There were 98 empty seats. The lights came up after we just watched my cut of Revenge of the Fallen. He turned to me and said ‘It’s awesome’ He felt this movie was better then the first - and probably my best, who knows - at this point in a movie you start to lose your objectivity. I just hope the fans like it.”
-
are 1D. I think that Cameron has accidently found Bay's Waterloo. In order for action sequences to work, they need to be choreographed. Cameron has it, Scott has it, Speilberg and Lucas have it. Bay just rolls a pile of scrap metal down a hill and tosses a camera in the middle of it and calls it a wrap. I think he is self aware enough to know that this will not work in a 3d space. I think that for a while, EVERY movie should be 3d and hopefully he will be driven from the business, long remembered as an abysmal failure. But I'm never that lucky. I guess I'll have to settle for the hope that he contracts inoperable nut cancer.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not the picture of health, but if you're exhausted after sitting on your fat ass for 3 hours slurping Mr. Pibb and slamming jujube's, it's time to mix in a salad and a few long walks. -
The 3D scenes in Superman Returns and Harry Potter already showed how lame it can be. It's all downhill after we get some 3D tittays.
-
3-D will remain a bit of a novelty. I liked Avatar (didn't feel cheated after it ended) but the glasses hurt like heck.
-
It's just ONE scene. Who pays all that money to see ONE scene in 3D?
-
Theater companies and movie studios don't invest billions converting theaters and developing technologies for "trends"; this is no more a trend than talking in movies, or color. 15 years from now we won't be using the term 3-D, because all movies will utilize some form of stereoscopic "Real-D" style 3-D.
There is nothing to dislike about the new 3-D. It's spectacular.
Unfortunately most films so far that have utilized the technology have done so with that dreadful "Let's make stuff pop out at the audience" thinking. I hate that crap. -
Hell, it might even make it look bigger!
-
Anyone care to comment? I've only seen one film in 3D (Beowulf) and while it was definitely, er, different, it left me feeling sick. Much preferred watching it on DVD.
-
That's the effect Avatar has had on me. Just give me a well thought out story please. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
-
I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!
-
would make me JIZZ IN MY PANTS!
-
I'd love to see Bay's 90 second Victoria's Secret commercial in 3D.
It's the only enjoyable thing he's filmed, even in 2D.
(I do think 3d is a shitty fad, regardless) -
I approve! It will make people go to movies more for the experience also. The price bump is acceptable also. If you can't pay don't play.
-
...Maybe they could do the metaphorical equivalent, and have JJ Abrams hurling his shit at the audience's faces for two hours straight, then stopping on occasion to piss on 'em, too.
OOOH! AHHHHH! -
....once the initial price of the 3D-enabled sets come down when a lot more manufactures get on board over the next couple of yearsThe 3D Blu-ray specifications have been finalised and agreed, and will include 2D versions for those that want it, or don't have 3D sets (2D versions of movies are here to stay too at the end of the day)....Computer games 3D capability alone will sell the sets, never mind the likes of the 3D Blu-rays and actual dedicated 3D programming that the likes of SKY is already planning to show....Everyone will be able to buy various designer version 3D glasses soon enough to look good watching this stuff....Got to say that me and my family ALL had a great experience with 'Avatar' (in RealD), and look forward to more. Haven't seen a 'conversion' yet, but Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' will give an idea of how successful that can be soon enough. I'm not against 'Robin Hood' being 'converted',and hope it's a hit, as there's plenty of previous movies I'd like the studios to be encouraged to 'convert' for another big-screen airing in the future.Michael Bay can keep to his usual 2D overly fast-cutting crap for people unlucky enough to have vision problems if he wishes, but count me sold on this latest 'polarised' type of 3D.I'd just far rather see 'Aliens:Director's Cut' re-released on the big-screen again, rather than fucking 'Titanic' though!Hopefully Ridley will still be as keen on 3D by the time 'Alien:Origins' starts to roll....
-
Which was a conversion, and it looked pretty good.
-
i want to wank it to 3D porn and entertain myself with 3D games or a combination of both. Imagine playing Rapelay in 3D. It would feel like you are actually IN the subway cart molesting children. Add some smell-o-vision with stale urine mixture and imagine the total immersion while you rape some jap preteen in the bathroom stall.
-
"3 beers and it looks good, eh."
-
not sure how non-CG converions will look and haven't seen Avatar but 3D kicks ass when used correctly
-
and how the fuck does a Robin Hood flick cost 200 mil!!??
-
Apart from it being really solid entertainment, Avatar is the first movie in a very, very long time that has to be seen in a movie theater to really appreciate. I can't imagine how much impact it will lose when it's reduced to home video. Avatar will attract people to the theater who stopped going to the theater.
-
Beowulf 3D was awful. That entire move was dark, and it looked like everything was shot through gasoline.
-
Rumor says he just offered a role for a certain model with DDD cups... hmm...
-
Now that would be interesting...lol
-
what he said...
-
Guess what?
3D is GAY ! -
At least, by me. 3D looked AMAZING for the first 5-10 minutes, but eventually...I'm just watching a moving. Just like I always am. One with good special effects, but a sci-fi movie just the same.
-
I agree that studios are banking (excuse the pun) on this 3D fad in order to sell higher priced tickets to general audiences and increase their top line growth.
But, Panasonic has already started production on their new line of plasma 3D HDTVs.
So, what happens when the theatrical 3D experience is so unique any longer. Back to square one? Or do we get holograms next?
Personally, I can't wait for the holograms. -
3D will be limited to genre special effects movies and big epics.
Because who the hell wants to see the latest Judd Apatow flick, Paul Blart 2, or a Meryl Streep dramatic flick in 3D?
Action adventure movies 'work' in 3D and it makes the action and environment more immediate.
Slapstick comedies aren't somehow funnier in 3D. I don't need to see Seth Rogen or Kevin James' gelatinous folds popping out of the screen, thanks. -
Not sci fi action, but a Cruse or Willis movie in 3D.
-
Like the film or hate it, that is the greatest 3D movie of all time. ( by that I mean the 3d-ness ). It added a tremendous amount of realism to the CG characters as well, which was very unexpected. The trailer ( in 2D ) was simply "ok" even in 1080i, but when I saw the same scenes in the theater in 3D I finally got it why people thought the Navi looked so cool.
Like I said,,, you don't have to like the movie, but you obviously didn't see it if you are dogging on the 3D aspect of it.
-
http://allelbows.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/022_gina_carano_img_66661.jpg
-
Dec 30, 2009 12:53:13 AM CST
Gingerella, I would like to see Russell Crowe throwing
by mattmanreturns
your 8 year old in 3D.
-
Having just seen Avatar in 3D, I can't see this as being "the future of cinema". Probably a bit behind the times here, but hey, thought I'd wait for the hype to pass.
3D is like an i-phone, you don't need it (really), but the powers that be will create a market for it so that you'll want it.
Personally, I found "The Dark Knight" in Imax a much more immersive experience, especially the scenes filmed in Imax. But, I guess that was shot on film... and that's oh so more expensive!!!
And as for the anti-piracy angle, who are the Hollywood studios kidding?
Living in Hong Kong, I've seen perfect pirate copies that are coming from i) preview dvds or ii) digital projection.
Anyway, Ridley's been going downhill ever since the dreadful "Black Hawk Down", so he may as well throw 3D into the mix for that perfect crappola cocktail (honestly, who really wants to see Russell Crow's pudgey bulk bulk wobbling in three dimensions?). -
TF2 was abonimably stupid but I loved the action scenes. Pretty much anytime the robots are onscreen, I'm happy. I think it would kick all kinds of ass to see Optimus standing in front of me in 3D.
-
I'm all for blockbuster movies, but how in the hell does a Robin Hood movie cost $200 million? Just how much does a digital matte cost these days?
-
I love 3D movies but I'm pretty sure old movies can only be converted to 3D in sort of a half-measure. Things will appear to be on different Z planes but they will seem sort of flattened on their planes. This is because there is only one image to work from, whereas modern 3D movies film two images to simulate human stereo vision. With two different images your brain does the work to give volume to the elements across various Z-planes.
-
I knew that this new wave of 3D was not a fad when I saw Beowulf in 3D which to me was the first large step forward. 3D Filmmaking is only going to get better and better. There will come a point when the film will be projected as 3D....no glasses necessary. Many of the same filmmaking techniques will still need to be intact and thats whats going to REALLY save the film industry. We have a huge buzz about 3D and then ONE more big push forward...
-
I would pay to see that
-
No thanks, I'll pass.
-
I don't think the mood and tone of the film at all suit what 3D is generally for.
-
It sounds like the theater where you saw Beowulf was awful..bright screen where I saw it and very clear.
-
they don't bother me...do you hate wearing sunglasses too?
-
Its like they are shitting right in YOUR mouth.
-
One excited audience member said at the premiere.
-
I was thinking that, today. If he were alive, he'd have warm water shooting in our faces in The Final Destination, as the dude gets he guts sucked out his ass. Castle would have loved this shit.
-
Not keen on existing images being 3d-ized - good description of the process Autodidact - sort of like the images you get with a multiplane camera in animation. 3d should be used for new films that are actually shot with stereo cameras
-
I enjoy certain films in 3D, but it definitely shouldn't be the norm. Alamo's polarized print of Friday the 13th 3D is a perfect example of how 3D can be a ton of fun and doesn't have to be the 'big new thing'.
-
I don't mind it when they do it properly and not just for cheap 'throw things at the audience' - but i would still like them to make the movies in 2d and 3d, as i've no idea what he hoe 3d is like, but cant imagine it is anywhere near as god as the theatre 3d, so the movie needs to be available in both (and perhaps both as a separate dvd/blu ray disc when released) so that if the 3d version cannot be watched, that there is atleast a 2d version that can be watched without losing anything from the overall performance.
-
...need to have a boxing match in 3D.
-
jLrXDuBa sWlbmLj
-
SIgpeGW ntIbXbJ
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 435 total posts 435 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 88 total posts 88 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 86 total posts 80 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! -- 127 total posts 62 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 159 total posts 61 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 88 total posts 60 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 58 total posts 57 posts
- Ridley Scott's Next Will Be Cormac McCarthy's THE COUNSELOR! -- 50 total posts 50 posts