http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/10 ... be-in-3-d/ Could it be true? I just want the film to be made.

Not the first time we've discussed this. But 3D ROCKS! (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. [b:17w8ecac]GB[/b:17w8ecac]

[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. [/quote:3flpkmu3] Unless he tries to remove the 2D version from existence like he did with the non-Special Editions. 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.

[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. [/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 ) 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

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 A bit more sceptical about the Hobbit in 3D though. Again, can't explain why, it just doesn't feel right 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!

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3oc4u9md]If it's cool it ain't irrelevant. 3D is COOL . 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="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.

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.

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)

Yeah most don't, I think that's about the only one I've seen too

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3rydwada]Oh come ON, just imagine those Trebuchet's flinging boulders right at you in RotK. And who doesn't want to see Smaug flying out of screen and singing their eyebrows? [b:3rydwada]GB[/b:3rydwada][/quote:3rydwada] I'm with you [color=#008000:3rydwada]GB[/color:3rydwada] Bring it on

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":5aqvnkxs]Oh come ON, just imagine those Trebuchet's flinging boulders right at you in RotK. And who doesn't want to see Smaug flying out of screen and singing their eyebrows? [/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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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

Jackson utilizing a gimmick? Surely not!

Given the financial state surrounding TH films I doubt PJ is so much standing up as on all fours!

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.

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.

I'm not ignoring the substance of your arguments. I just don't agree with them. (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.)

The 3D in Avatar was highly effective for me. And I thought the story and characters were excellent too . [b:8pfvpq2z]GB[/b:8pfvpq2z]