|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plurmo
Rohan
Feb 11 2010, 6:57pm
Post #26 of 117
(16453 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't even consider the possibility
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
of The Hobbit being 2D only. The whole industry is moving into 3D and block busters are what they need in order to make big improvements in the technology. The Hobbit is arguably even more suitable for 3D than LOTR.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 11 2010, 7:04pm
Post #27 of 117
(16559 views)
Shortcut
|
|
3-D is not necessary for either.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is good for computer animated graphics, and when the glasses go away It will be suitable for all audiences. I do not believe that it would improve the quality of The Hobbit one wit.
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Plurmo
Rohan
Feb 11 2010, 7:25pm
Post #28 of 117
(16516 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm thinking about industry logic only. There's a fierce competition going on and The Hobbit is an opportunity for knowledge expansion. They (GDT, PJ, RT) will not spend half a dozen years (or more) on a 2D only endeavour while their competitors (including inside ones, in the case of Weta) explore 3D.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think our focus should be on how to create a good 3D adaptation of The Hobbit.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 11 2010, 7:45pm
Post #29 of 117
(16487 views)
Shortcut
|
A 3-D release of the Hobbit prior to a 3-D release of the The Lord of the Rings. This is really improbable any where in the near future. I am certain that the studio can not re-engineer Peters movies without his cooperation and I am certain he would want to oversee such a process. Looking at Peters scheduled work, I doubt he gets back to the possibility ant time soon. On top of this I find transforming classic movies by colorization, inserting newly shot scenes or even re-filming them to be a questionable process. 3-D is just one more thing on the list.
No wait-wait H1 in 2-D H-2 opens in 2-D and becomes a 3-D film with the flight of Smaug kind of like the Wizard of OZ's color thingi. Or GDT shoots the entire thing in Spanish with sub-titles. Or Both or...
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 11 2010, 7:49pm)
|
|
|
Plurmo
Rohan
Feb 11 2010, 9:05pm
Post #30 of 117
(16520 views)
Shortcut
|
I cannot see it other way. There are just too many scenes inside bounded spaces like the tunnels and halls under the Misty Mountains, Mirkwood, Thranduil's Caves, Erebor. Besides, how will they avoid the temptation of vertiginous dives upon the Carrock and fantastic "sentient clouds" in Bo5A? Honestly I think Manwë-related spirits like Carrioncrow and Almas Sparks are in for some great aerials.
To capture the hearts of the audience the makers must first capture the hearts of the people involved in the job. Part of those are technicians who would feel downcast by the possibility of staying a lot of years inside a 2D framework while their friends do 3D stuff. Remember all the work they put on Gollum. That passion would be lost, and we all know without passion there would be no LOTR movies.
The question is will GDT be able to deliver a good adaptation of The Hobbit in 3D or will he spend just too much effort on visual effects at the expense of the plot?
PS: thinking about falling through the hole in the ring, this time I hope they do it very slowmo, because I want to become invisible for a while and also have a peep at the Shadow World.
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 12 2010, 12:42am
Post #31 of 117
(16517 views)
Shortcut
|
...once in 2D, once in 3D. It wasn't IMAX 3D, so I can't comment on that, but it wasn't more immersing to me. There were a few times when you saw stuff float out towards you (mercifully few times, though), but that works counter to immersion. It reminds you that you're watching technological tricks and jolts you out of the moment of storytelling. I don't think 3D adds much, but it distracts a good deal.
|
|
|
almas_sparks
Rohan
Feb 12 2010, 12:51am
Post #32 of 117
(16456 views)
Shortcut
|
|
it would be absolutely amazing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
to see all that in 3D, experience the caves and tunnels and wide spaces and flight on eagles.
I mean, they are making Tintin on 3D and Tintin is,like, big in Europe but not in North America. OTOH, whole world anticipates The Hobbit and it won`t be in 3D? That would be soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo disappointing! The Hobbit is an event! Not just a movie. An event! And there will be 2D versions anyway (because there aren`t enough 3D theaters) so both 3D and 2D fans will be pleased.
|
|
|
Idril Celebrindal
Tol Eressea
Feb 12 2010, 2:23am
Post #33 of 117
(16496 views)
Shortcut
|
With caffeine, all things are possible.
The pity of Bilbo will screw up the fate of many.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 12 2010, 3:25am
Post #34 of 117
(16471 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess you are staying home if it only releases in 2-D?
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 12 2010, 3:36am
Post #35 of 117
(16501 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I also saw Avatar this weekend
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It was a good thing it didn't have much of a plot. It was all about the visual effects. There were a couple times when the 3-D effects re interesting but on a whole I find it interferes with getting into the movie and constantly reminds you that you are watching it. It was real pretty and had lots of big explosions. I had just watched the Blur Ray Extended Version of King Kong and noticed that a lot of the effects in Avatar were variations on sequences done for Kong.
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Rogash
Bree
Feb 12 2010, 6:05am
Post #36 of 117
(16359 views)
Shortcut
|
It is the same thing for me,and I have fear for The Hobbit in 3D because of smal effect which will be improve only for this 3D,and the script would be changed.For example,In Avatar there are some moment create for 3D,and when you see it in 2D,it sound be wrong.And I don't want 3D for The Hobbit.
Moreother Avatar is fart away from any LOTR films,and they were in 2D.Stupid 3D
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Feb 13 2010, 12:16am)
|
|
|
Rogash
Bree
Feb 12 2010, 6:09am
Post #37 of 117
(16451 views)
Shortcut
|
Forgive me all,I'm French
|
|
|
Glorfindel
Rivendell
Feb 12 2010, 6:17am
Post #38 of 117
(16439 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hey, I wonder if you could clear something up...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
.. not being technologicially savvy I need a few things explained to me. If one is using real locations, as TH will undoubtedly do, does the 3D technology really enhance those locations? I've been trying to think of any recent 3D films that are not CGI or animations that I can sit and watch in order to make an informed opinion. Can anyone steer me in the right direction?
At this point I'm not a fan of 3D but as I agree with Kangi that the glasses are a pain, especially if you are watching it with littlies. You spend more time trying to get theirs to stay on than watching the film. My smallest ended up watching 3D Journey to the Centre of the Earth without his glasses as he said he couldn't see with them on. He'd spent the first quarter of the movie munching his ice cream and pushing his glasses up on his face by the lenses, with the result he couldn't see because of all the choco chip smears. Money well spent... not.
As I say I've only seen 3D CGI and animations and while the technology is undoubtedly amazing I don't really see how, as others have said, 3D can enhance a terrific story. Avatar was amazing visually but it was basically Pocahontas on Pandora. I don't have any burning desire to see it twice. James Cameron believes that Avatar is the 'ultimate immersive media'. I reckon a ripping yarn can still do that without resorting to 3D.
But please I would welcome the opportunity to educate myself otherwise.
Cheers
Glorfindel
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Feb 12 2010, 10:53am
Post #39 of 117
(16590 views)
Shortcut
|
Now falling down the Hobbit hole, reaching left-grasping right, astonished by the wonders to our digital delight, oblivious to our mounting speed we ride the plunging spell looking for the next big thing before we hit the bottom of the well.
Just say NO to The Hobbit in 3-D.
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 12 2010, 10:55am)
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Feb 12 2010, 12:42pm
Post #40 of 117
(16401 views)
Shortcut
|
Avatar's 3-D was just average, but at the same time didn't take away from the story line, and I was surprised at how good the story and message were. Usually 3D pops out at you more and has at least one or two 'roller coaster' rides. Avatar had a perfect opportunity to fly through the air down the mountain, along the rivers, etc., but didn't utilize the 3-D that way. In some ways it was good that they didn't go over the top with it, though I wished they had done one good flying scene.
I hope they do The Hobbit films in 3D.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Feb 12 2010, 12:47pm
Post #41 of 117
(16495 views)
Shortcut
|
We all hop in barrels, and they roll us around while watching it through 3D virtual reality glasses, and when it comes to the Elves/barrel rolls scene, we'll feel like we're right in the movie?
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Feb 12 2010, 1:05pm
Post #42 of 117
(16446 views)
Shortcut
|
very subtle in Avatar. I actually like the thrill ride every now and then throughout a 3D movie, but Avatar didn't do that for me...I guess they must have looked at it from the perspective of not wanting people to be jolted out of the moment of storytelling. So for me it did the opposite...I was pulled back to reality because I was expecting and wondering why they weren't captializing on the 'flying through the air' scenes, which could have been more of a thrill ride (like in 'A Christmas Carol').
However now that I know not to expect the full crazy thrill ride 3D experience, I think the 3D version would be great a second time round. I can't imagine watching it in 2D now, and still feel like I'm right there.
Contrary to what most people are thinking, I found the story and message very profound and touching, because when I left the theatre, I wasn't touched by the 3D, but rather, was uplifted by the story itself, which compells me to go back and watch it again. They sucked me right in, with how they did the Na'vi, and their story. I was right in that movie believing they were an actual tribe that exists. I personally thought the story and plot were awesome and inspiring.
I hope they do the same with The Hobbit, but knowing it is a more subtle 3D experience like Avatar.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Feb 12 2010, 1:10pm
Post #43 of 117
(16460 views)
Shortcut
|
Having both 2D and 3D should not spoil it for anyone. If you don't like the idea of it in 3D, just go to the 2D theatre, but don't wish others that have embraced 3D, not to have their experience in 3D.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 12 2010, 2:00pm
Post #44 of 117
(16566 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course that goes without saying nowadays. Is anything in monoaural anymore?
******************************************
That hobbit has a pleasant face,
His private life is a disgrace.
I really could not tell to you,
The awful things that hobbits do.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Feb 12 2010, 5:00pm
Post #45 of 117
(16536 views)
Shortcut
|
if the screen size made a big difference? I found the IMAX 3D to be a completely immersive experience. Yes, at first I was aware of the 3D, but I quickly forgot to think "special effects" and just became part of the story, and I'm wondering if it may be because the screen was so danged big? It's too late for AVATAR, cause you've seen it and formed your non-IMAX opinion of 3D, but if you ever see an IMAX 3D movie, let me know if you still feel the same.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
almas_sparks
Rohan
Feb 12 2010, 5:38pm
Post #46 of 117
(16536 views)
Shortcut
|
Agree with all you said!
IMO, polling people about Hobbit 3D on this forum and polling people leaving the theater after seeing Avatar about Hobbit 3D is bound to produce opposite reactions. Here, No to 3D will prevail, while Avatar audiences will give resounding Yes to 3D. I don`t think I have to point out which group is majority and which one is minority. 
Anyways, I`ll be very disappointed if The Hobbit isn`t given a 3D chance at least on IMAX (keep 2D for everything else if you want). LOTR didn`t have IMAX release which is dumbfounding.The Hobbit would really benefit from it, and I`m talking IMAX not LIEMAX (those small screens that call themselves IMAX). I mean, they make Tintin in 3D. I couldn`t care less. Tintin is big in Europe and I`m not from there and don`t care. But if something that clearly isn`t a global sensation can go 3D, surely one of the most anticipated movies in the world can. especially since there`s always a 2D option that goes together with 3D release.
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 12 2010, 6:26pm
Post #47 of 117
(16341 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm very glad for that. The few other 3D movies I've seen all used it as a terrible gimmick, and Avatar's relative constraint was a very good thing. I still don't think it made a huge difference though; I didn't find 3D more immersive than 2D, and the picture quality seemed somewhat less (though maybe that was just my eyes, or the glasses). In any event, not really worth the extra ticket price.
IMHO 
|
|
|
Eldy
Tol Eressea
Feb 12 2010, 6:30pm
Post #48 of 117
(16470 views)
Shortcut
|
I've been to a few different IMAX theatres at various museums. Some of the screens are just larger version of cinema screens, but one was a half-globe that surrounded the seating on three sides. That one was especially amazing.
It's been some time since I saw anything in IMAX 3D, but as far as I recall it's better than regular 3D. I wanted to see Avatar in IMAX to round out my experience of all three ways of seeing it, but I couldn't find a theatre showing it.  I recognize that the IMAX experience is probably better, though.
|
|
|
Plurmo
Rohan
Feb 12 2010, 6:52pm
Post #49 of 117
(16316 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Glorfindel, what follows is my non-expert's reply.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As far as I know 3D technology cannot enhance real locations beyond what digital cinematography (be it 2D or 3D) can do. I don't know if the real world can be enhanced beyond what, for example, HDR (high dynamic range) provides (if that's what you really mean by "enhance").
I'm also unaware about the image enhancing properties of choco chip smears but in this place the smallest persons are said to be able to change the course of the future. Who knows if your smallest wasn't really trying some very unorthodox form of image processing?
Till now what we have seen is how 3D can damage a terrific story (the 2008 Journey to the Center of the Earth you mention is a case in point). Will GDT and PG "ride the plunging spell to the bottom of the well?" I hope not. I hope they achieve the proper balance between story-telling and visual profusion. There's no point in making The Hobbit movie if you cannot carry Almas on the back of Smaug through the flames while fulfilling Kangi's desire for a pure Tolkien experience.
Oblivious to my mounting tardiness I ride TORn's plunging spell... till someone kicks my bottom and I end up down in Hell.
|
|
|
lazygarfield
Bree
Feb 12 2010, 7:02pm
Post #50 of 117
(16314 views)
Shortcut
|
.... to burst your bubble but Inception is not in 3D. It was shot in 2D and that too in normal film, and will be converted to the IMAX format. Just the IMAX format, mind you, not the 3D format.
And yeah, that shot of Paris folding into itself was sweeeeet.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
|
|
|
|
|
Useless
[
