Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 to be released without 3D conversion!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. "Good," I thought as I read this statement from the PR department of Warner Bros. I'm gaining a reputation as a 3D hater, but that's not true. I like 3D to be fun, I think it can add to the experience of watching a movie, but I just can't look at it the way some people do in terms of it being the next evolution of cinema. I can't see it as anything but a gimmick, personally. The restrictions on the creative end, the demands of the lighting to not cause eyestrain, the almost assuredly haphazard projection at the theaters... But when it's fun, in a fun movie, I enjoy it. What I don't enjoy are these rushed conversions, films shot standard and then thrown through the grinder when the studios realize a decent conversion takes many months, not a few weeks. Clash of the Titans and Piranha's 3-D were horrible, but in Piranha's case that only added to the goofy tone of the movie. So, "Good," I thought when I read Warner Bros decided to stick to their date and pull their 3-D conversion for initial release because it wouldn't be ready in time. Most other studios would have just put a rush on the remaining conversion, results be damned. Maybe WB learned their lessons on Clash of the Titans. Here's the statement from WB:
Statement from Warner Bros. regarding “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1”: Warner Bros. Pictures has made the decision to release “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1” in 2D, in both conventional and IMAX theaters, as we will not have a completed 3D version of the film within our release date window. Despite everyone’s best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality. We do not want to disappoint fans who have long anticipated the conclusion of this extraordinary journey, and to that end, we are releasing our film day-and-date on November 19, 2010, as planned. We, in alignment with our filmmakers, believe this is the best course to take in order to ensure that our audiences enjoy the consummate “Harry Potter” experience. Producer David Heyman said, “For 10 years, we have worked alongside Alan Horn and the studio, whose priority has always been to preserve the integrity of Jo Rowling’s books as we have adapted them to the screen, and this decision reflects that commitment.” Director David Yates added, “This decision, which we completely support, underscores the fact that Warner Bros. has always put quality first.” As scheduled, on July 15, 2011, we will deliver to conventional and IMAX theaters our final installment of the film franchise, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2,” in both 2D and 3D formats.

As you read, they're still planning on releasing Part 2 in 3-D and I'd suspect we'll see a 3-D re-release of Part One timed close to the second half of the story. They've already put in what I would assume would be a considerable amount of time and money into the conversion, so it only makes sense to finish it out and make some of that money back in a re-release. That I'm not too hard on. I love the Nightmare Before Christmas conversion and the few minutes I've seen of the conversion test of the opening of A New Hope makes me really interested to see 3D used as a vessel for re-releasing classic flicks. What're your thoughts? -Quint Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:45 p.m. CST


    by Can_You_Fly_Bobby

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:45 p.m. CST


    by loafroaster

    I say also.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by chadiwack

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:56 p.m. CST

    im actually disappointed.

    by soup74

    i agree with the decision, but kinda wish they were able to make a good 3D conversion on time. i have a nice home theater set up, so good 3D makes going to the theater seem like more of an 'event' to me.<br><br>like i said.. i appreciate them making the right decision, I just they could have made the conversion look good in time.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Good...the 3rd time...

    by vettebro

    3D fad will die off again soon.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Yay. Love GOOD 3D, hate crappy conversions

    by Antz

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:58 p.m. CST

    What movies were filmed with 3D cameras??

    by shalashaska

    To my knowledge its only been Avatar thus far and that was pretty fucking awesome. Everything else 3D has sucked and thats my theory why. Conversion is a gimmicky shortcut and is not using the formats full potential. I cant wait to see Jackass- now that will be a different story altogether.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Thank the maker

    by Kremzeek

    Death to 3D-conversion. That is all.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:02 p.m. CST

    The last few Potter films...

    by Luc1ferous

    Have been absolutely atrocious, cut down, barren versions of the world Rowling lovingly crafted, I was a late comer to the Harry Potter series, mainly due to the first book's horrendous narrative. An old girlfriend forced me to try again on the third book having seen the first two films and actually enjoying them, what i found was that Rowling improved, her world getting more vibrant and her prose substantially improved... But the films? they keep getting worse and worse... I just hope that these last two actually do the inal book justice, if part one works then i wil happily sit threw a re-release before seeing the final part.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Really, Luc?

    by Kremzeek

    I still find that Part 1 is my favorite. But I've always loved origin stories. But, yeah, I agree, 5 and esp. 6 were not very good. This next one looks amazing though. It looks similar in tone to parts 3-4 to me. And both those films were excellent I thought. So, I'm hopeful this takes the franchise out of its rut and ends on a high note, too.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Old news.

    by 40VirginsAnd_aMule

    CHOPPAH had this up in the morning as well as mad max 4 getting delayed..

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:11 p.m. CST


    by superhero

    So tired of this 3-D crap! 3-D isn't worth 20 bucks a ticket!

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:13 p.m. CST

    *COUGH* Clash-of-the-Titans ***grummble

    by mistergreen

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Good news

    by AtheistScum

    3D sucks - great news!

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Is it just me or does the post count seem low

    by 40VirginsAnd_aMule

    Ever since all the cool guys got banned?

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:15 p.m. CST

    If it's not shot in 3D, don't bother with this conversion BS

    by mistergreen

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST



    Well, all I want anyway.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:20 p.m. CST

    My two cents

    by proevad

    Great news. Haven't seen a film in the new 3d yet. Last 3d film I saw was a House of Wax re-release sometime in the 80's. Gave me a headache from hell. Bad enough, that I don't even want to attempt to watch another one.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Post Count - 40VirginsAnd_aMule

    by The E

    @40VirginsAnd_aMule No, post count largely is based on the subject/topic of the posts rather than random guys getting banned.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:26 p.m. CST

    This decision, which we completely support,

    by oborostyle

    underscores the fact that Warner Bros. has always put quality first. wow. david my ass.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST


    by donkey_lasher

    3D is just a fad. I'll happily take in the odd film at the cinema wearing the glasses, one that was filmed for it, but 3D TV's and the like are fucking stupid. Having to own enough glasses for a family and sitting there wearing them is ridiculous.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST

    3D kinda sucks for us nerds with glasses...

    by TheJake

    ...the stupid 3D glasses never fit right over standard specs. Therefore, as a representative of the nerd community, I say 3D can go right ahead and suck my balls. XOXO - TheJake

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:31 p.m. CST

    I can't stand film snobs who call 3D nothing more than

    by Swishes

    a gimmick. Sure, when it's done as a conversion it's not good, but when done well it can be great. Sure no one wants to wear the glasses, but eventually advances in technology will eliminate them. And you can't stop technological advancement. 3D is no fad or gimmick. It's here to stay and it will get better. So in 2050 while you luddites are still whining about getting back to the good old days, I'll be enjoying some awesome holo-movies.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:39 p.m. CST


    by Dark Knight Lite

    NO 3-D FOR BATMAN. Let Nolan complete his trilogy as he wants.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:39 p.m. CST

    3D too DARK!!!

    by FleshMachine

    they need to boost the brightness to compensate for the glasses....why dont they do this???

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Snobby film snob spank farts yay

    by LookWhosTalkbackingToo

    Sure, 3-D was gimmick in the 50's. And then it was a gimmick again in the 80's. But this time it's totally for real not a gimmick, you guys! It's the future! Promise!<p> And in the year 2525, you philistines will be pining for the days of "thoughtfully conceived films that rely on engaging plots and compelling characters" while me and all the cool kids are enjoying CLASH OF THE TRANSFORMERS 4: SHADOWS OF THE NIGHT. Sucks to be you, JERKS!

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Stop ruining film with 3D you nincompoops!

    by napper_tandy

    It's blurry, it's awkward, it hurts my eyes, it's expensive - audiences do not want this. Please stop it!

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Want to attract audience? Called a good script!

    by napper_tandy

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:49 p.m. CST

    In 2050 there will be holo movies

    by PinkFloyd7

    ...but by then I will be 80 years old and the experience will probably kill me.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 5:49 p.m. CST


    by rxse7en

    Resident Evil 4 was shot with Cameron's 3d cameras. Not a great flick, but my son and I enjoyed it. Decent addition to the RE series.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 6:16 p.m. CST

    This 3D shit IS a gimmick...

    by Sulla

    and it will go away eventually. It may take awhile, but it will. Because great film making is great film making, and 3D is not needed to accomplish that. Why do I get the feeling most of the 3D supporters are big Michael Bay fans?

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Yeah, every fucking movie does not...

    by Sailor Rip

    ...have to be in 3D. It's nice sometimes but when it gets to a point where a director or cineamatogopher is like "Well I would have shot the scene this way but since we're doinbg it in 3D I guess we should shoot it this way." then that's bullshit and compromises the original artistic vision and turns it into a gimmick.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Fuck 3D!

    by Sigourneys_Beaver

    I mean really. I don't care. On top of that fuck boring Harry Potter. these films are just shit. I've seen them all once, fell asleep a few times. Never revisited.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 7:09 p.m. CST


    by gabbygall

    Actually Bay said that 3D conversions are not his style - hence the 2D Transformers 3. So that kind of renders your `Bay` comment null and void.. and makes you look like a cunt.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 7:23 p.m. CST

    other movies actually shot in 3D were...

    by Quartermass-87

    someone stated above only Avatar was shot in actual 3D. But actually Step Up 3D I believe was actually shot in 3D as was Resident Evil Afterlife which actually went so far as to include the words "shot with the same camera system as Avatar" in its trailers. Also going backbefore Avatar I believe My Bloody Valentine 3D was shot in actual 3D and Jackass 3D which is coming up is as well and add Saw 3D to the list too. So when3D is shot 3D with the purpose of being that way and while shooting things are done to take advantage of it I don't mind it. But converting it is just lame and stupid and makes people hate 3D. How can you take something flat and make it 3D? you can't really and people are catching on. So 3D is fine if it is shot that way andmeant to be that way.....converting just blows like Sasha Grey.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 7:33 p.m. CST

    Warners listened to the audience ....

    by mr dark

    If it isn't right don't do it... pretty fookin simple eh!

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 7:38 p.m. CST


    by Sulla

    Lol! Did I hit a nerve? Bay said they weren't his "style"? Bay has no style, he's a hack who makes shit movies for little kids & slow minded adults, not a serious filmmaker.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 8:19 p.m. CST


    by Quartermass-87

    sadly the new horror you mentioned Wes Craven's My Soul To Take is another shitty 3D conversion and the reviews I have read say it is worse that Clash of The Titans conversion and we all know that was shit to the power of ten.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 9:21 p.m. CST

    This might just be a money making scheme, though

    by MelGibsonsRacialTirade

    They're saying the 3D isn't they'll release it in 2D now and 3D later. Sounds like they'll get a lot of repeat business when they re-release it in 3D. Sounds like a con more than anything.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Coraline was shot in 3D

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    And it looked glorious. Saw it twice in theaters just to savor the rich dimensionality of the image. Nine times out of ten, animated movies are the only ones to make 3D look good.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 9:33 p.m. CST

    80 Days

    by Could_Harrys_Oblong_Penis_Penetrate_Another_Hermaphrodite

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 10 p.m. CST

    I wish they had just said "You know what? Fuck this shit!"

    by ricarleite2

    "It looks like shit and it's too fucking hard. Let's give up." And stopped doing it. BUT... this smells like a stunt, to re-release the film in 3D to grab some more cash.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 10:34 p.m. CST

    if avatar is a standard...3D is dead. lol

    by Bouncy X

    the trailer for pirhana that played before it didnt look any better or worse. one may have been post converted and the other filmed that way but they both looked like like lame pop up book/viewmaster images.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 11:52 p.m. CST

    According to this talkback

    by pushthebuttonmax

    The first HP book sucks and no one watches Nightmare Before Christmas. Yep.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Sulla, Bay has more style than you ever will, fatty.

    by Joely_Boy

    Odd that you say his movies are for slow-minded adults, I bet you're one of the people that complains that when the Transformers fight you can't tell what's going on.

  • Oct. 8, 2010, 11:58 p.m. CST

    And the last HP film was the best one.

    by Joely_Boy

    It was fuckin' awesome, not to mention visually stunning.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 12:04 a.m. CST

    I agree with you TheJake

    by room23storeblogspotcom

    I hate trying to fit those stupid glasses over my own glasses. I try whenever possible to go 2D.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 1:16 a.m. CST

    don't give a fuck about 3d.

    by billyhitchcock1

    i don't watch 3d films.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 1:40 a.m. CST

    That fucking owl movie looks awesome in 3D.

    by El Mamerro

    It really does.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 2:48 a.m. CST

    I was gonna see it in 2D anyway

    by pokadoo

    Agreed, 3D is gimmicky, and distracting. Although I enjoyed parts of Avatar, Up and er... Step Up in 3D!

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 2:53 a.m. CST

    Half Blood Prince IS a work of art

    by Anything But Tangerines

    Regardless of how the rest of how the last two turn out or how the other 5 films are remembered, HBP will always be the one to revisit when appreciating the series in the context of the art of cinema. It's one of the most beautifully shot films in history.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 10:06 a.m. CST

    HBP love seconded

    by Larry Sellers

    And this letter is a fucking apology. Really? Because the first HP films didn't make a fuck wad of cash without 3D, right? Ridiculous. 3D should stop being shoehorned into everything. And 3D re-releases are worse than tacking on that shitty gimmick in the first place.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 10:45 a.m. CST


    by KevinMuller

    I am glad they have decided against it. The 3D in certain movies really adds nothing to the experience. I remember when I saw "My Bloody Valentine" in 3D and it was one of the worst experiences in my moving going life. Not only did the movie suck, but the 3D was wasted. When it wasn't being used for lame kills, it was making 3D of scenes of people talking even more annoying.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST

    79 Days

    by William_Faulkner_Is_A_Ban_Mad_Mod_Sock_Puppet

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 11:40 a.m. CST

    OMG hold the phone!

    by t3hSt1ngray

    A movie studio actually doing somthing that would benefit a film? Looking out for the movie and FANS best interest?! This blows my mind...i think i need to sit down.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Would rather wait for good 3D than have bad sour a good movie

    by VAwitch

    As header says. I've avoided Titans due to the mangled 3D reports. I'm going to rent the DVD, and probably won't be missing much :) But WB has been doing quality work lately on genre-films, and it would be sad to have seen their track record get blown by crappy work on the final installation of their current cash-cow.<P><P>And count me in as giving a little more $ for a re-release theater viewing before pt2. Heck, I'd likely have done that anyways even if they'd made a successful conversion in time for pt 1.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 1:26 p.m. CST

    CG is a gimmick, 3D is a gimmick, fire is a gimmick

    by terry1978

    You see where I'm going.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 1:32 p.m. CST

    I think most of us agree: Death to 3-D Conversion!

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    I think if you're making a film for 3-D, everybody involved in the production, from the screenwriters to the cinematographer to the lighting riggers to the editors need to know in advance of shooting that the film is a 3-D film in order to get any positve result to be worth the extra ticket dollars to the consumer. 3-D Conversion is, in fact, ruining the market for true 3-D. People that pay money for a converted film believing they are paying to see a "real" 3-D movie (like "Avatar") are going to pretty soon stop paying for 3-D versions unless that's the only choice they have.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Here's a good example.

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    I'm planning on seeing Wes Craven's new movie, "My Soul to Take" because I'm always interested in Craven's style even if his output has been hit or miss, but there's only one theater in town showing one screen of the film NOT in 3-D. I'm sorry, I don't want to pay $15 (the cost of a 3-D film at night in Louisville) to see a film not shot in 3-D, particularly something like this not screened for critics with no AICN reviews that will likely bomb this weekend. Converting films to 3-D is not the answer to box-office blues.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 2:13 p.m. CST


    by Sulla

    It's hard to complain about the Transformer fight scenes when I was falling asleep during the first 20-30 minutes of the "movie". I use that word loosely because it was more like a bad music video. Lol you Bay lovers are so touchy and fragile. Again, he's a hack. And if you actually think his stuff is good you have ZERO taste in film and most likely need to wear a helmet when you leave the the house.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 2:43 p.m. CST


    by workshed


  • Oct. 9, 2010, 3:02 p.m. CST

    I'm not totally against conversions...

    by Johnno

    If they take the time to do it right then it can be awesome! I've seen bits of A New Hope and Phantom Menace in 3-D and it is glorious! Lasers flying at you in space battles, great stuff! As for all the 3-D haters. 3-D is no more a gimmick than surroud sound, colour, or films as a whole versus live stage performances. Sure teh tech used before wasn't as good, but where it's at now is fine and it'll only get better and mroe convenient. Hell, NIntendo is releasing the 3DS which doesn't require glasses and they plan on putting portable movies on that too! Someday we'll get our proper HDTV sized glasses-free TVs as well as theaters. Until then I'm going to enjoy seeing the techology progress as much as I'll enjoy good stereo experiences in the theatre. And yes you dopes, audiences are indeed asking for this by the veyr fact that they're willing to pay more and that 3-D screens are making the most revenue even if you were to take the inflated prices out of the equation.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Quint: How about new fucking movies?

    by Sebilrazen

    Instead of 3-D-ifying the classics? They're classics for a reason. You can't buy the body of an old coupe and throw a new engine in it and still call it a classic. It's like the song "Hot Rod Lincoln," looks belie its actual power, but it still ends badly.

  • Oct. 9, 2010, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Now that I know what happens, I really don't care

    by FeralAngel

    And there it is. *shrug* Part of the interest in the Potter books and films for me was "What happens next?" (That question, by the way, was never asked by me with quivering anticipation, but with an impatient need to find out if springing all those bucks for those ridiculously thick books was going to result in some kind of satisfying payoff. For me, the answer was NO. The ending didn't break my heart, it just didn't set it racing. So feh on these last films. The kids are too old now anyway, and...I really don't care.

  • Oct. 10, 2010, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Too bad they can't edit out Yaxley's ponytail

    by Kontarsky

    Thing looks fucking retarded. If you've read the books, it's pretty obvious he's a clean cut sort of bloke, not the sort who wears a fucking ponytail. And the Runcorn casting is awful. Russell Crowe would have been perfect! Fuck these films. The only good ones were first and second, then they lost the plot from the books

  • Oct. 11, 2010, 7:12 a.m. CST

    Nothing will ever be as big as this series...

    by I AM ROCKO

    ...I am mean in terms of box office, DVD sales/rentals, merchandise sales for each film. However for the only truly great Harry Potter film is third movie...

  • Oct. 11, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST

    OMG, How did you know I needed a pair of shoes!?!$%

    by kidicarus