Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: the Hobbit in 3D

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > the Hobbit in 3D   [1] [2] >>
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/10 ... be-in-3-d/ Could it be true? I just want the film to be made. :|
Please no 3D. <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' /> I've had enough bad news about that format for the week when I heard George Lucas is re-releasing Star Wars in 3D. <img src='/images/smileys/vevil.gif' border='0' alt='Very Evil Smilie' />
Not the first time we've discussed this. But 3D ROCKS! :mrgreen: :ugeek: (as long as they FILM it in 3D and don't retcon it) Eldo, if you don't want to see the 3D version, you'll still be able to see it in 2D. :P [b:17w8ecac]GB[/b:17w8ecac]
[quote="Eldorion":1ixkhkr0]Please no 3D. <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' /> I've had enough bad news about that format for the week when I heard George Lucas is re-releasing Star Wars in 3D. <img src='/images/smileys/vevil.gif' border='0' alt='Very Evil Smilie' />[/quote:1ixkhkr0] Does that man never stop? :? Edit: At second thought, Star Wars could be quite cool in 3D. It kind of fits better, with space and all. Not so sure about the Hobbit, though
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3flpkmu3]Eldo, if you don't want to see the 3D version, you'll still be able to see it in 2D. :P [/quote:3flpkmu3] Unless he tries to remove the 2D version from existence like he did with the non-Special Editions. :P I wouldn't be surprised if he only releases the 3D version on Blu-ray. And we've discussed this before, but no one here or on any other forums have been able to mention anything that 3D does aside from add an irrelevant gimmick and jack up ticket prices. :mrgreen:
If it's cool it ain't irrelevant. 3D is COOL 8-) . Star Wars in 3D would be Frakkin' awesome. [b:32yjlswy]GB[/b:32yjlswy]
[quote="Eldorion":iwwf8sp6] And we've discussed this before, but no one here or on any other forums have been able to mention anything that 3D does aside from add an irrelevant gimmick and jack up ticket prices. :mrgreen:[/quote:iwwf8sp6] Well, what more should it do? The irrelevant gimmick lets you watch the film in 3D, and many people are willing to pay extra for that. The reason why no one has been able to mention anything else than that is because it doesn't do anything else. It's just a matter of personal preference I guess (I for one agree with you, not very fond of 3D :P) Edit: "Unless he tries to remove the 2D version from existence like he did with the non-Special Editions" - Eldo Actually, I have the orginial releases of the first trilogy (1977, 1980 and 1983 versions) on DvD. They came in a box set including the newest releases and the original releases on bonus discs, so they're still out there <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
:x You're supposed to agree with me Ringdrotten. :P :lol: 3D IS COOL. :mrgreen: One step closer to the holodeck. [b:9ehngxek]GB[/b:9ehngxek]
:lol: Well, I do agree that Star Wars would be awesome in 3D. I think 3D would really fit the Star Wars films, though I can't explain exactly why I think so, I just do <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> A bit more sceptical about the Hobbit in 3D though. Again, can't explain why, it just doesn't feel right :P But if it [i:251bn18j]is [/i:251bn18j]made in 3D I'll definitely watch the 3D version too, and who knows, I might be proven wrong!
My main gripe with 3d is the direction tends to becomes contrived to accommodate it. And if anyone thinks PJ has the self control not to turn it into everything flying at you every chance he gets they are deluding themselves. And it also makes bad direction look worse- and there was some bad stuff in bits of the LotR films that would be even worse with a 3d effect slapped on top. PJ isn't the sort you'd want to give new toys too while he's still overindulging himself in the ones he has got!
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3oc4u9md]If it's cool it ain't irrelevant. 3D is COOL 8-) . Star Wars in 3D would be Frakkin' awesome.[/quote:3oc4u9md] What's cool about being jarred out of an immersive story by seeing something fly in your face? Even if the reaction is "wow, that's amazing!" rather than "that sucked", it's still jarring. I don't see any attraction in having the story of a movie interrupted because people want to show off what their computers can do.
[quote="Ringdrotten":3mwnbxyh]Well, what more should it do? The irrelevant gimmick lets you watch the film in 3D, and many people are willing to pay extra for that.[/quote:3mwnbxyh] My point was that 3D itself is a gimmick. I can't imagine that many people are impressed by movies that halt their stories to show CGI monsters - no matter how fantastically rendered - if those monsters are irrelevant to the plot. That's just a gimmick to get people to see the movie and be wowed by an accomplishment of technology. It's the same thing with 3D: they interrupt the storytelling to show off some neat technological tricks. [quote:3mwnbxyh]Actually, I have the orginial releases of the first trilogy (1977, 1980 and 1983 versions) on DvD. They came in a box set including the newest releases and the original releases on bonus discs, so they're still out there <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />[/quote:3mwnbxyh] Yes, they're out there as a Limited Edition (which is, of course, limited in production and isn't even on the [url=http://shop.starwars.com/catalog/category.xml?topcatID=293;category_id=320:3mwnbxyh]official shop[/url:3mwnbxyh]), but Lucas only did that after a campaign by fans, prior to which he was apparently willing to let the original cuts be left behind on an old medium (VHS).
[quote="Eldorion":2bgf397z][quote="Ringdrotten":2bgf397z]. It's the same thing with 3D: they interrupt the storytelling to show off some neat technological tricks.[/quote:2bgf397z][/quote:2bgf397z] Well, the fact that a movie is in 3D doesn't necessarily mean the plot suffers because of it. I understand how film makers might be tempted to do what you say though.
[quote="Eldorion":17ibfpeq] Yes, they're out there as a Limited Edition (which is, of course, limited in production and isn't even on the [url=http://shop.starwars.com/catalog/category.xml?topcatID=293;category_id=320:17ibfpeq]official shop[/url:17ibfpeq]), but Lucas only did that after a campaign by fans, prior to which he was apparently willing to let the original cuts be left behind on an old medium (VHS).[/quote:17ibfpeq] That original trilogy box set is the one i've got, contains the original releases on bonus discs <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Well, 3D movies can still have good, entertaining stories (I think Avatar managed this and was unfairly bashed). One of the nice things about Avatar's 3D was that it tended to stay in the background and didn't get in the way. Unfortunately it didn't do much at all aside from make the picture quality fuzzier (that's a side-effect of 3D films) and make the audience wear uncomfortable glasses for two and a half hours. I've thought about this at some length because I've read so many posts here and elsewhere talking about the wonders of 3D, but I cannot think of a single way that 3D film is a better medium for storytelling or realism* than 2D is. *Things do not fly in ones face all that often in real life, and when they do it's typically considered cause for annoyance.
[quote="Ringdrotten":3obm1bfn]That original trilogy box set is the one i've got, contains the original releases on bonus discs <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />[/quote:3obm1bfn] That would be the [url=http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Collectible-Widescreen/dp/B000IJ6QTC:3obm1bfn]Limited Edition[/url:3obm1bfn]. Most of the box sets (there are several of them), including the otherwise very nice one that I have and all of the ones that can be easily purchased, don't feature the original releases at all.
Are you sure that [url=http://shop.starwars.com/catalog/product.xml?topcatID=293;product_id=1307374:3f79gm9y]this one[/url:3f79gm9y] is limited? I've seen it in every cd/movie store I've been to in Norway, doesn't seem very limited to me. Didn't see that it said limited edition anywhere on that website either (might have missed it though, currently using an iPod touch so it's not unlikely)
I've not seen that one very much in the States, but I clearly missed it on the shop. :oops: In any event, most of the box sets that I've seen here don't include the theatricals. :?
Yeah most don't, I think that's about the only one I've seen too <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Oh come ON, just imagine those Trebuchet's flinging boulders right at you in RotK. :lol: And who doesn't want to see Smaug flying out of screen and singing their eyebrows? :lol: [b:oygvvc36]GB[/b:oygvvc36]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3rydwada]Oh come ON, just imagine those Trebuchet's flinging boulders right at you in RotK. :lol: And who doesn't want to see Smaug flying out of screen and singing their eyebrows? :lol: [b:3rydwada]GB[/b:3rydwada][/quote:3rydwada] I'm with you [color=#008000:3rydwada]GB[/color:3rydwada] Bring it on :lol: :lol:
I imagine the asteroid fields in Star Wars would be awesome in 3D <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":5aqvnkxs]Oh come ON, just imagine those Trebuchet's flinging boulders right at you in RotK. :lol: And who doesn't want to see Smaug flying out of screen and singing their eyebrows? :lol: [/quote:5aqvnkxs] That's exactly what I'm talking about. If they can pull it off I'll be like "wow, that's some amazing 3D!" but it will yank me right out of the story. I want to a movie that will immerse me in its world, not jolt me around between the story and technological gimmicks. Besides, since when has stuff flying in your face been cool? :roll:
[quote="Eldorion":3b79r43l][quote="Gandalfs Beard":3b79r43l]Oh come ON, just imagine those Trebuchet's flinging boulders right at you in RotK. :lol: And who doesn't want to see Smaug flying out of screen and singing their eyebrows? :lol: [/quote:3b79r43l] That's exactly what I'm talking about. If they can pull it off I'll be like "wow, that's some amazing 3D!" but it will yank me right out of the story. I want to a movie that will immerse me in its world, not jolt me around between the story and technological gimmicks. Besides, since when has stuff flying in your face been cool? :roll:[/quote:3b79r43l] **Sigh!** :roll: 3D is in IMMERSION technology :P (not a "gimmick" :x )...like Virtual Reality...and holograms. What would be more immersive than than Star Trek's holodecks, or the Matrix? 3D is another advancing technology that is converging with other immersion technologies to eventually create a fully immersive experience. Therefore you should be Happy about the advances in 3D technology. :mrgreen: As long as you can still watch it in 2D, why do you care? I want MORE 3D DAMMIT JIM! :P **in Dr McCoy's voice <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> **...the more 3D there is, the more the tech will improve. Are you a Luddite? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> :mrgreen: Anyway, I LIKE stuff flying out of the screen at me...[i:3b79r43l]it's more immersive.[/i:3b79r43l] <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> :mrgreen: [b:3b79r43l]GB[/b:3b79r43l]
Say I'm watching a wildlife documentary in 3D and a bird comes flying towards the camera. The 3D technology makes it seem like the bird is going to come out of the screen and slam right into my face. This results in me (1) flinching and (2) thinking about the technology instead of the documentary for a moment. Now say I'm watching the same documentary in 2D. A bird flies towards the camera. I don't feel like I'm about to be hit in the face, but I get a closer look at the bird. I'm amazed by the natural spectacle without being distracted by the technological effects. Assuming the bird never gets too close, the 2D experience is vastly more similar to the experience of being in a safari, because objects that are more than a few feet from your face take on a somewhat 'flat' or two-dimensional appearance. An object has to come very, very close to your face before you start flinching. Some people claim that 3D adds "depth" to the picture, but depth is displayed through [url=http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Depth-and-Distance-Perception.topicArticleId-25438,articleId-25333.html:h0tx845q]monocular and binocular cues[/url:h0tx845q], which 2D is just as capable of showing. 3D is ultimately an artificial experience. Also, I should note that my immersion I refer to to immersion [i:h0tx845q]in a story[/i:h0tx845q], and story immersion is harmed by anything that distracts from the story (a point you ignored). If 3D was actually like a Star Trek holodeck I might have a different position on the matter, but as noted above, they are [i:h0tx845q]vastly[/i:h0tx845q] different in terms of experience (not to mention the technology involved). A holodeck would require some sort of direct interface with the brain, whereas cinematic 3D is just an optical illusion. Comparing the two is nonsensical.
Regarding 3D, I did have an uncomfortable experience with it... I was watching a trailer for "Despicalble Me" and they pointed a giant needle at my face in 3D!Imagine the headache I got from watching that!!!! And I really do enjoy 3D, and I'd think it'd be really awesome if Middle Earth was 3D, but Eldo's right; it detracts from the story. That's the only reason Avatar was that amazing I think. The story wasn't original, but the spectacle was.
I got to agree with Eldo here it is a gimmick GB. Just like it was a gimmick last time in the 70's. When they try to sell holodecks I'll be first in line GB, but they aren't, they are selling primitive 3D technology that adds very little (and arguably nothing) to the ability of film to tell a story or engage with characters. Tin is spot on about Avatar, its not a good film, its not even well told. Its cliche ridden, the dialogue is hackneyed and it seems to be cobbled together from bits of previous Cameron films that fell on the floor, but it is a tour def force of CGI- which is why it leaves me completely cold. I already think LotR was more often marred than helped by PJ's use of CGI (Gollum, large crowds and landscapes being the help almost everything else being the bad) let alone giving that out of control maniac 3D to ruin TH with.
3D does give one a headache.
I just realized I missed this earlier: [quote="Gandalfs Beard":1jvpv5is]As long as you can still watch it in 2D, why do you care?[/quote:1jvpv5is] Because movie studios and theatres clearly want more 3D (they can charge 2-3 times as much for tickets to a 3D movie), and if movie-goers continue to flock to see 3D movies they will have no reason not to phase out 2D screens, or at least stop making new ones until all the old ones are hopelessly outdated and replaced. This is like someone in 2000 saying "why do you care about DVD, you can still have VHS". That said, there is a difference in that that unlike DVDs, 3D does not offer a clearly superior version of movies.
[quote="Eldorion":elqlf24k] 3D does not offer a clearly superior version of movies.[/quote:elqlf24k] Now [i:elqlf24k]that[/i:elqlf24k] is very subjective, don't you think? If someone absolutely loves 3D, he/she will think the 3D version superior. It's no different than dvd vs. vhs, dvd doesn't do anything other than give us a better film experience. And that is exactly what 3D does too (for some). I understand your concern that film makers might sacrifice a good story for cool 3D effects though, and that if 3D becomes really popular it will kill off 2D in the long run. I share that concern at least!
I suppose it is subjective, but at least DVDs do not add any distractions. Regardless of whether or not one likes 3D effects, they still distract from the story (at least in most cases).
Animated 3D films are great- but outside animation I have not seen one film that the 3D expereince actually improves the movie for me. A lot of time, money and effort is needed to create live action 3D film that actually incorporates the 3D into the story and goes beyond just having things jump out at the audience. At the moment 3D is a gimmick when outside of animation. Plus my glasses always slide off, and are never comfortable. I am against. I got so distracted through Avatar. Friends were like "ooh watch the scenery, it is so amazing!", so I spend most of the time looking at the 3D forest and planet than concentrating on the actual film. Looking back that may have been a good thing...
I'll agree that in most cases (if not all) 3D will be very distracting. But it remains subjective whether it adds to the experience in a positive way or not <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Fair enough. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> That said, I don't think there was any sort of controversy over the superiority of DVD to VHS like there is with 3D and 2D, so I think my original statement has [i:1josq0wq]some[/i:1josq0wq] value to it.
I'll admit that that argument is a bit weak, but it's basically the same if you look at it the way I did in that example. And I can only agree that DvD is a better upgrade than 3D, since it doesn't distract you from the plot. I may of course be a bit biased when I say that though, since I'm not particularly fond of 3D either :P
Sounds like its confirmed, 3D. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4241119/Jackson- ... bit-in-3-D
Jackson utilizing a gimmick? Surely not!
Disappointed but hardly surprised. I might have hoped that Christopher Nolan ([i:1z9nhf16]Inception[/i:1z9nhf16]) could inspire other directors to stand up to the studios and insist on 2D, but that would have been a very slim hope.
Given the financial state surrounding TH films I doubt PJ is so much standing up as on all fours!
:P Party Poopers. All indications are that Jackson will film it utilizing the 3D process of Avatar, which Weta had a hand in designing. So at least it won't be retconned 3D like Clash of the Titans. There will still be a 2D version so quit yer whinin'. [b:6jfqku9d]GB[/b:6jfqku9d]
The concern GB is not that there wont be a 2D version but that it will be ruined by a lot of pointless special effect gimmickry designed for the 3D and and lots of pointless shots of things coming 'out' of the screen at you all the time- which is a cheap enough trick in 3D and looks bloody awful in 2D. And lets face it PJ is a master of the cheap trick- he loves them.
:roll: :P [b:2svmg7er]GB[/b:2svmg7er]
I note that's not a denial of PJ's box of cheap tricks nor that stuff made for 3D viewed in 2D tends to look at worst awful and at best cheesy.
Then you note wrong. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [b:1odh25g1]GB[/b:1odh25g1]
:lol:
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":1e3mbrn5]All indications are that Jackson will film it utilizing the 3D process of Avatar, which Weta had a hand in designing. So at least it won't be retconned 3D like Clash of the Titans.[/quote:1e3mbrn5] So it will have only minor detractions (but still detractions!) from picture quality and add nothing significant to the film? Because Avatar in 3D didn't look different from 2D except for a few gimmicky and unrealistic 'floating out' shots and the somewhat blurrier picture. [quote:1e3mbrn5]There will still be a 2D version so quit yer whinin'.[/quote:1e3mbrn5] Every successful 3D blockbuster (and The Hobbit is more or less guaranteed to be a success regardless of it being in 3D) will only encourage studios and theatres to transition more into 3D and start phasing out 2D, where the profits are less. I know I'm repeating my earlier arguments but they seem to have escaped your notice as you merely keep insisting that you're right and ignoring the substance of what other people say. :P
I'm not ignoring the substance of your arguments. I just don't agree with them. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> (Except of course your subjective experience that the 3D in Avatar was "blurrier" and ineffective. I cannot deny your own personal experience. However, that wasn't MY experience, nor the experience of the millions of people for whom the 3D effect WAS effective.)
Just curious GB would you say the 3D in Avatar was effective as a special effect (in say the same way Gollum is effective) or effective as a means to furthering the characters and story (as Gollum also was)? My own opinion from watching Avatar was that the 3D did nothing at all towards furthering the story or character development- it was purely a visual thing. And I will put up with a lot of crap visually if the characters and story are up to scratch but I'm not so kind the other way around. My fear is TH will look amazing (as LotR mainly does) and be full of flash 3D whooo moments- but be soulless and commercially exploitative to the point of blasphemy.
The 3D in Avatar was highly effective for me. 8-) And I thought the story and characters were excellent too :P . [b:8pfvpq2z]GB[/b:8pfvpq2z]
:lol: A neat avoidance GB. Let me ask then did you think the characters and story being highly effective was directly influenced by the use of 3D or would you have found the characters and story equally as effective if it had only ever been made 2D? Basically I'm trying to get at what it is you like about 3D?- if its just the visual fun of it then fair enough.
  [1] [2] >>