Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Disney's BOLT (formerly AMERICAN DOG) gets 3-D treatment!

cool by bunkyboo	Nov 26th, 2007 02:10:31 AM

3D Makes Me Barf by DOGSOUP	Nov 26th, 2007 02:10:37 AM
But in a good way.
to be by bunkyboo	Nov 26th, 2007 02:10:55 AM

first by bunkyboo	Nov 26th, 2007 02:11:30 AM

3D will be embraced by all by hansello	Nov 26th, 2007 02:12:37 AM
3D means that what you see in the cinema will once again be unavailable in the home. With greater availibility, cinema admissions will strengthen as a result and cinema goers will once more perceive cinema as a 'special' thing. At the moment, my living room set up is better ( not bigger) than what my local multiplex can offer. Give me a reason to get me back into the cinema. Also, it will but piracy on the back foot again for many years.
Total Gimmick by kkkpex	Nov 26th, 2007 02:12:41 AM
I mean, look at the film MATINEE... that's what it will come down to. Imagine the likeness of MUPPETS 4-D being shown at a theater near you. It will take more and more to get people to spend their money on movie tickets.
Seems like a poor candidate for 3D by Mullah Omar	Nov 26th, 2007 02:19:14 AM
BEOWULF was an epic fantasy about monsters and was a great way to show off 3D. The eye-popping effects were perfect for the source material. But a film about a dog? This seems pretty gratuitous, searching for a story to prop up some effects rather than using them together. That's just my first impression, but I'd rather see 3D used for films where the spectacle is important.
The poster can be seen here by frankenberry	Nov 26th, 2007 02:29:49 AM
Here is a link to the poster: http://tinyurl.com/3yfd9s. I e-mailed it to you guys last week, Quint. Not sure why it wasn't included in either this report or an earlier one, but oh well.
Before Beowulf Gimmick!! After?? by FreeKill	Nov 26th, 2007 02:33:32 AM
Every 3D movie I had seen prior to Beowulf was really bad. I saw Superman Returns in 3D (barfalicious) and the last Harry Potter (sickening) and both were really bad. The 3D made me sick to my stomach. Beowulf however, caused no ill effects whatsoever. Maybe it's the difference between hacking in some 3D and designing with 3D in mind from day one?
I look forward to 3-D.... by Crimson King	Nov 26th, 2007 02:48:05 AM
The reason Beowulf isn't going to be insanely popular beyoned opening weekend is because the movie itself is just ok. I can't deny, however, that the spectacle of seeing it in IMAX 3D is fucking amazing. Frankly, it makes me excited for the future of 3D cinema. Just like regular films, it's all about the story. Spectacle can only get you so far. When movies come out in 3D that are truly immersive, in more than just a visual/audio sense, then the format will truly take flight. I will admit, you can't just start making all films in 3D, 'cause that makes no sense. It is best suited for films that will provide that spectacle and jaw-dropping visual experience. However, the hope is that they will also provide an experience that engages you further than just superficially. Also, as FreeKill said, it helps that some of these films are being made with the 3D experience taken into consideration. It's obvious to me that Beowulf was meant to be seen in 3D because of the way certain shots were composed. They would seem ridiculous on a normal 2D screen, but make perfect sense in the realm of 3D...however, unlike FreeKill, I did think that Harry Potter in 3D was pretty cool.
The poster! by frankenberry	Nov 26th, 2007 03:28:57 AM
Thanks for adding the poster, Quint!
The glasses by Brendon	Nov 26th, 2007 03:44:33 AM
Nobody is going to care about the glasses soon enough. Juts like people don't care about the seat, the carpet or the screen - it's all part of the cinema architecture, all part of the technology of the overall experience. 3D is here and here to stay. For ever. Shame Dolby 3D isn't anything like as good as Real-D, but anyway. So, those of you cautious about the spectacles - just get over yourselves. How many people just wear glasses all day every day, anyway? And nobody said TV wouldn't take off until, for example, we got rid of the little box in the corner, or the cables, or the remote control.
This 3D lark... by TinSpider	Nov 26th, 2007 04:29:51 AM
..is lost on me. I saw Beowulf twice on IMAX 3D and despite changing my specs several times the image was always just a blurry mess and my brain was no way fooled I was watching anything other than a 2d medium. This really fucked me off, as everyone else in the cinema seemed to be having a great time. Anyone else had this problem? At least I found the actual film a brilliant piece of entertainment.
3D - it's like looking into the future man! by Constidine4Rorshach	Nov 26th, 2007 05:40:21 AM
Even made Superman Returns (Superman lifts a lot of stuff) watchable.
I AM halfdoghalfWOLF! by ironic_name	Nov 26th, 2007 06:20:23 AM
GOOD ON YA!
3D... by leobloom	Nov 26th, 2007 06:21:22 AM
It's the new excuse for producing shitty movies. "But people will pay to see it in 3d!!"
Still waiting for 4-D movies by Kentucky Colonel	Nov 26th, 2007 07:48:49 AM
Why? So I can get back all that wasted time! Did I really need to see HP:OotP five times? And what was I thinking seeing "The Phantom Menace" more than twice?
Again I say it--THE INCREDIBLES in 3D, Disney by Mr Incredible	Nov 26th, 2007 08:54:24 AM
Make it happen!
The Incredibles in 3D, But Not Just by kevinwillis.net	Nov 26th, 2007 11:11:14 AM
I'd pay to see every Pixar flick 3d-ified. I'll see Raiders of the Lost Ark in 3D. But . . . they need to get the brightness/contrast up. The problem is not the glasses themselves, the problem is the penalty the polarization exactness on image brightness and clarity. I haven't seen any IMAX 3D, but the problem there is that there just aren't as many IMAX theaters as tehre are digital projection theaters now. And in places like Memphis, the IMAX theater was funded with the caveat that it not play commercial movies, so we never get Superman Returns to Lift Heavy Things or Harry Blotter and the Order of the Peanut in 3D. But we do get to watch Trip Down the Amazon or The History of the Trilobyte. But not in 3d.
Also, Why the Change to "Bolt" by kevinwillis.net	Nov 26th, 2007 11:11:51 AM
From "American Dog"? Treason, I say. Treason!
"Bolt" is what you do when you're running away. by Trader Groucho 2	Nov 26th, 2007 01:17:33 PM
What kind of hero does this? Okay, Superman in Superman 2, but that was to draw Zod, the dumb guy and chick who was hotter than Margot Kidder to his crystal cathedral to trick them into losing their superpowers. But other than him....
Thank the Christ-child it's not called 'American Dog' anymore by performingmonkey	Nov 26th, 2007 04:08:27 PM
Seriously, we do NOT need any more movies with 'American' in front of them.
Samsung 3D HDTVs on sale now.... by Ninja Nerd	Nov 26th, 2007 05:01:22 PM
Samsung has a $200 "kit" for their newest sets that gives you home 3D. You must get one of the new 120fps sets as the "kit" alternates 60fps to each eye, producing the effect. (it uses shutter glasses sync'd to the display output) Haven't seen it in person, but supposedly it works with ANY source, including PS3s, XBox, Wii, DVD, etc. Some material will obviously work better than others..."Meet The Robinsons" and "Beowulf"...for instance. Your mileage may vary. BUT, this is a good start. There are several approaches to "no glasses required" 3D being worked on now, including one scheme similar to something I worked on a few years ago, that uses twin DLP DMDs set at angles to each other. Step up the scan rate and alternate like the Samsung solution, but the image is on the screen, not in the glasses. That's not the whole deal, but is basically similar to "trimensional video" that Asimov wrote about and "stereo tank" that Heinlein and others described in the 1950's. In fact, we'll probably "see" 3D in wide use in the living room more quickly than theatres due to cost constraints.
"Next step forward" by supertoyslast	Nov 26th, 2007 05:30:58 PM
I still hope that 3D doesn't become the "next step" in the way that sound and colour were. Not that it seems likely because of the expense involved. I don't mind big blockbusters being released in 3D to showcase the format. But having almost every new film in 3D would seem like a waste to me. I see 3D as a special effect for big-screen spectaculars. Some films benefit from big special effects and others wouldn't. Same with 3D.
Come on Steel Magnolias in 3D! by Coldsnap	Nov 26th, 2007 05:48:54 PM
Seriously, I found a new appreciation for going out to see a movie with Beowolf in Imax 3D. But for the love of all that's warm and chewy, there's no need for the 'period piece' movies to be made in 3D. So you, Mr. Producer out there (yes, you know who you are). Stop it. Okay? Just stop it. Put down the phone, don't order a re-release of Driving Miss Daisy.
3D kills Bootlegging, Fear the RealD by ThePilgrim	Nov 26th, 2007 05:52:46 PM
Bring it on! Loved Beowulf. Thought the story was fun, and thats all that matters. It didn't need to be deep or epic, nor did it have to hide any big mcguffins. It's about a egomaniacal self righteous prick who kills monsters. His true weakness is pussy. It destroys and codems him. A great story, take your kids. Pussy is evil baby. We must Fuck it, before it's too late, but you all must remember, no matter what you do, don't spurt inside it. It will be your end.
THEY LIVE in REALD by ThePilgrim	Nov 26th, 2007 06:00:40 PM
Oh shit yeah, When the glasses go on it goes 3d, then back to standard 2d when they come back off. You can keep wearing your shades- cause it doesnt really affect the look of 2d film. So theres no need to put a place 3d glasses on now caption on the screen.----------------- Once the contact lens are dropped in, the film remains in 3d.--------------- Of all the movies to do the 3d RealD treatment.
Gimmick You Say? by skoobyx	Nov 26th, 2007 07:10:25 PM
I call your attention to a little film known as 'Jaws 3' Oh wait..that did suck. Um, Captain Eo?
Now I want to burn my theatre to the ground by finfangfoom	Nov 26th, 2007 09:07:06 PM
Every advertisment i saw for Beowulf at my theater advertised stunning 3-D, and apparently my theater is to cheap to get the friggin 3-D cameras. And yet, they have Star Trek episodes every thursday. This movie theater SHOULD burn.
3D works just fine on a multiplex screen by geekzapoppin	Nov 27th, 2007 10:41:32 AM
The digital 3D that is in use right now works just peachy on the smaller screens. There isn't the flicker problem that used to plague older 3D methods, nor do you need a specially-coated silver screen to display it. 3D Imax is the shit, but Digital 3D is the next best thing. As long as the studios focus on content as well as gimmick, 3D will remain viable. Once all the films become empty theme-park attractions, it will die off again. I've been a 3D nut since the '83 boom, so bring it on! The only thing I don't like is the extra money that the theaters are charging. $5 extra on top of the already-outrageous prices is highway robbery.
Extra money for 3-D by obidawsn	Nov 27th, 2007 11:07:31 AM
I totally agree that the extra money for the 3-D is a joke. geekzapoppin, $5 if definitely highway robbery. We pay $2.50 extra, and I thought that was ridiculous. I can understand charging extra to help pay for the glasses. But why don't they make it where we don't have to pay that 'fee' if we bring our own glasses. After all, I have six or seven pairs of 3-D glasses lying around somewhere. I don't need new glasses everytime I go see a movie. When Chicken Little came out, they had special 'Chicken Little' glasses. I thought that would be a good idea to make them unique in some way. It made them something to collect, like posters or something. But I don't need 20 pairs of normal, black, 'RealD' glasses. And if they let us waive the 'fee' if we bring our own glasses, doesn't that promote being 'green' since we're not filling landfills with all those pieces of plastic (and a little extra 'green' in our pockets as well).
Isn't this old news? by minderbinder	Nov 28th, 2007 07:46:39 AM
Hasn't it been obvious for a year or so that disney is going to release EVERY non-pixar animated flick in 3d? They have since Chicken Little, haven't they? And 3D looks great on regular screens, Monster House looked incredible, Nightmare looked really good, I'd argue both of those looked better on regular screens to me than Harry Potter did in 3D imax, but that may just be because it wasn't animated. And beowulf is doing just fine, if nothing else it is proving that the 3D release is a HUGE boost to a movie like this. But really, that's been clear since Polar Express, where the 3D made the difference between a hit and a flop.

Talkbacks

Disney's BOLT (formerly AMERICAN DOG) gets 3-D treatment!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks