|
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net? Consider a donation!
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lazygarfield
Eerb
Feb 12 2010, 7:46pm
Post #51 of 117
(19543 views)
Shortcut
|
You know, as much as you can deny it, there's no doubt the, right now, The Hobbit is one of those movies that must be in serious considerations to 3-Dimensionalize.
Think about it, the success of Avatar has sent all studios into a frenzy. We already knew filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson etc. were going to try out 3D themselves. After the movie's success, we can add Roland Emmerich, Lou Leterrier to the mix.
And, think about it, why won't the studios make it in 3D? The process of converting a 2D movie to 3D takes just $5 million now, and will obviously lessen by the time The Hobbit comes around.
Infact, theres a high probability that they shoot the film KEEPING 3D in mind, so that it doesn't come off as cheap.
If theres one thing, it can learn from Avatar, its that you can effectively use 3D without stupidly breaking the 4th wall every now and then, and instead, create a fully immersive world. And lets face it, would you not want to be immersed in Middle-Earth? In the Shire? Rivendell? Fly over an Eagle? Walk through Mirkwood Forest? Don't lie to me sweety, you know you want it...
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
|
|
|
sphdle1
Rodnog
Feb 12 2010, 7:55pm
Post #52 of 117
(19637 views)
Shortcut
|
they stocked the 3D glasses, and didn't charge extra for 3D movies (especially when they are not IMAX theatres).
During the times I forgot about the 3D (when on the ground and not flying...), I thought about it later, and felt more immersed in those parts of the movie than I usually do...almost like there was some extra magic to the story that made me feel like I was right there.
I do find it matters more where you sit in the theatre for 3D...unless it's IMAX, I find that if you sit from the midway point and back, the screen appears too small in 3D and is not as good...with 3D, the close to the screen the bigger it seems, and the more immersed I feel, especially once I forget about the 3D and just melt into the movie.
|
|
|
Captain Salt
Aessere Lot
Feb 12 2010, 11:33pm
Post #53 of 117
(19619 views)
Shortcut
|
Goblins in 3-D?! Let's hope they don't give us smell-o-vision also.
(This post was edited by Captain Salt on Feb 12 2010, 11:34pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav
Feb 13 2010, 4:56am
Post #54 of 117
(19746 views)
Shortcut
|
I just saw Avatar in IMAX 3D after previously having seen it in 2D, and I have to say that I am totally sold on the idea of using 3D for the Hobbit. I am convinced that in the right hands, the format could be used to enhance the excellent story, rather than distract from it. If for no other reason than for the butterflies that Bilbo sees when he climbs the tree in Mirkwood, I would gladly pay the extra price.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
|
|
|
Glorfindel
Llednevir
Feb 13 2010, 5:31am
Post #55 of 117
(19758 views)
Shortcut
|
Not sure my youngest is a budding cinematographer but as the Journey to the Centre of the Earth was pretty pants he couldn't really be making his viewing experience any worse!
I'm still not convinced The Hobbit needs 3D for the total immersive experience though. Good storytelling can still do that and I have faith that GDT, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens will deliver that by the bucket load. Maybe I should have seen Avatar in IMAX - indeed I can't remember if I have ever seen a film in IMAX but the kids tell me that there's no point to 3D if it's not on the wrap around screen.
When you get down to the rub I really don't care if it's 2D, 3D or smellovision (although the rolling around in the barrel experience would just make me vomit so that's a non-starter). I won't be thinking it's a missed opportunity. When the lights go down I'll be grinning like a Cheshire Cat because I'm back in Middle Earth.
|
|
|
dormouse
Nevle-flah
Feb 13 2010, 10:00am
Post #56 of 117
(19505 views)
Shortcut
|
When the lights go down I'll be grinning like a Cheshire Cat because I'm back in Middle Earth.
Amen to that!!!!
|
|
|
almas_sparks
NahoR
Feb 13 2010, 12:53pm
Post #57 of 117
(19636 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agreed, 3D can enhamce, not ruin an excellent story
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Avatar 3D, that is, not old gimmicky one.
I mean, if the story is good, how can immersive 3D ruin it? I just don`t get this argument that some people bring up. Good movie is a good movie, bad one is bad one. Good won`t become bad thanks to 3D and bad won`t become good thanks to 3D. Transformers 2 would`ve been garbage on 3D too while LOTR would`ve been great.
(This post was edited by almas_sparks on Feb 13 2010, 12:55pm)
|
|
|
almas_sparks
NahoR
Feb 13 2010, 12:56pm
Post #58 of 117
(19524 views)
Shortcut
|
|
buaaaaaaaaaa,sniff,sniff,buaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
needs crying smilie badly! 
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah
Feb 13 2010, 3:41pm
Post #59 of 117
(19504 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not old gimmicky one, but the new and improved gimmicky one! //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
macfalk
Ronilav
Feb 13 2010, 6:11pm
Post #60 of 117
(19549 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As long as we have a choice between seeing it in 2D or 3D, I don't care.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(This post was edited by macfalk on Feb 13 2010, 6:11pm)
|
|
|
Plurmo
NahoR
Feb 13 2010, 9:56pm
Post #61 of 117
(19446 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You're most welcome, Glorfindel.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"I'm still not convinced The Hobbit needs 3D for the total immersive experience though."
I agree completely. I don't think there's any need for 3D, I only think its inevitable.
-------------------------------
Doctor! I'm not mad! Yes, it was dark but I swear I saw it: a Cheshire Cat and a Cheshire Kitten grinning in the dark!
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav
Feb 13 2010, 11:17pm
Post #62 of 117
(19920 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure you don't mean to be rude
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
However, that comment came across as quite pithy and almost rude to me. Particularly having just seen Avatar in IMAX 3D and being frankly amazed at how ungimmicky the 3D was. Of course your mileage may vary, but to me the discussion is more interesting and valuable when people's points of view are taken seriously rather than dismissed with pithy one-liners. You can take that for what it is worth.
I certainly don't think that 3D will determine whether The Hobbit films are artistically successful; that will depend on the script, and the acting, and the cinematography, and the directing (and the score, and the costumes, and the sets, and the bigatures, and a bunch of other stuff, and most of all, assuming the adaptation is done well, on the source material). If The Hobbit remains in 2D it won't make me any less excited to see the films. But I am convinced now that the 3D technology could make the films even better than they otherwise would be.
Again, your mileage may vary.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
www.arda-reconstructed.com
(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Feb 13 2010, 11:18pm)
|
|
|
7777777
Llednevir
Feb 13 2010, 11:45pm
Post #63 of 117
(19508 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've never seen a movie in 3D...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
mostly because I'm not really interested in wearing glasses for several hours.
Has anyone here tried to watch a 3D movie without the glasses?
"Something, something, something Darkside. Something, something, something complete."
|
|
|
Buchanicus
Neirol
Feb 14 2010, 1:00am
Post #64 of 117
(19565 views)
Shortcut
|
3D...sigh. Personally, it's not for me at all, and I would really like for The Hobbit to stay far away from it. Now, this is my personal opinion, I'm not going to try and say that my point of view is the right one, or that those who ebjoy the format are wrong in some way. I just have some issues with the "technology" that ultimately lead me to have no interest in 3D.
I have seen sevral movies in 3D. All three times I experienced Nausea, eye strain and an overall discomfort wearing the 3D glasses...especially on top of the glasses that I already wear. It was the same after seeing Nightmare Before Christmas, Beowulf, and even Avatar. Amy "immersive" sensation was replaced by discomfort. Overall, not an enjoyable experience. Alsoi after seeing Avatar in 2D, then seeing in in 3D, I thought the movie looked blurry in places and darker than the digital 2D version of the film. My opinion (again, not saying it's the only one that matters) the digital theater experience is far more satifying and enjoying....and thats before considering the above mentioned discomfort.
So... we get to the issue of choice. If there was a gaurantee that there would always be a choice in seeing these moveis in 2D or 3D, then it really wouldn't be that big of a deal. But that is something that is already begining to be a problem. For example, ther are 3 theaters that are in close proximity to me. The main one, the theater I go to 90% of the time showed Avatar on 5 screens it opening weekend. 4 of these screens showed the movie in 3D, 1 showed it in 2D...4 showtimes all day. Now I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how long they continued having their 4 showtimes of 2D Avatar, but I can tell you that they have had no 2D showings in well over a month. The other two "nearby" theaters both showed the movie on two screens and only showed it in 3D. Now in concerns to this trend and to the film version of The Hobbit, a movie at least two years from release, that doesn't bode well for those of us who want 2D. The choice is being takne out of our hands, and that is directly because of money. They can and will and do charge more for films in 3D. The theater I often go to charges $4.50 more per film, bringing the cost for one ticket to one show, $14.00. And that is what theaters and studios care about the most. That is why after the numbers started to roll in for Avatar, then the decision was made to turn Clash of the Titans and Harry Potter into 3D movies. Retrofit them so to say. And that really bothers me, because they know (and will) charge more to see these films. These are not films "made for" the 3D experience like Avatar and the upcoming Alice in Wonderland...they were turned this way because of money, trend and gimmick...yes I will use the word gimmick in concerns to converting films to 3D rather than shooting them in 3D. That, I feel, is a gimmick to get people to spend the extra money. Another misguided solution to combat pirating. Because you can't pirate 3D (yet), so people have to come to the theater to get the 3D experience. But, I believe that it may promote pirating because people don't want to pay that much and/or don't want to see it in 3D.
I have believe in GdT and PJ and the design/production team behind The Hobbit films. I believe that they are insanely talented and creative people, and for these films to be a success, they have to be able to share the vision that they have and want to put on the big screen. I do not think that adding a "3rd dimension" is something that is necessary for this project. Even though there is gonna be tons of FX and creatures and fighting and spectacular settings and is a fantasy story (which seem to be the kinds of movies that "have" to be in 3D now), I thinks it's the equivalent of putting the Godfather or the like in 3D...because to me the LotR films and ultimatley The Hobbit films are more then just "theater experiences". They are bigger and more prestigious than that.
Again, all of this is just my opinion, I think this is an extremely subjective subject. I don't think that there is a right or wrong, just preferences and feelings and emotions. Hell, I just love it when people are emotional about films in any way! My personal view on this whole subject is that movies and going to the theater to see them is my favorite thing to do and is my number one interest and I'm very passionate about that and I don't want my hobby to become somethin that I no longer enjoy. That is all.
TORn member formally known as ryan1976.
|
|
|
Eldy
Rodnog
Feb 14 2010, 1:08am
Post #65 of 117
(19628 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you take the glasses off...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...you get a blurry image and, in the case of Avatar at least, two copies of everything. The technology Cameron uses involves presenting two images on screen, which the glasses somehow combine to make it look 3D. 3D films aren't watchable without the glasses.
|
|
|
Plurmo
NahoR
Feb 14 2010, 1:26am
Post #66 of 117
(19525 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What I see without the glasses
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is quite similar to someone with astigmatism reading your username.
|
|
|
7777777
Llednevir
Feb 14 2010, 4:20am
Post #67 of 117
(19672 views)
Shortcut
|
I think I'll pass.... I don't watch many movies at all(still haven't gotten around to seeing any of GTD's movies) and 3D doesn't sound very appealing.
"Something, something, something Darkside. Something, something, something complete."
(This post was edited by 7777777 on Feb 14 2010, 4:23am)
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah
Feb 14 2010, 10:36am
Post #68 of 117
(19730 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Pleas catch Pan's Labyrinth. You won' regret it. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah
Feb 14 2010, 10:46am
Post #69 of 117
(19449 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I really want to be amazed by the story telling not the technology.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The relative newness of the format (though I saw my first polorized 3-D film in 1967) and the glasses that don't fit well over mine and the fact that my spouse is blind in one eye all work against me enjoying what is happening on the screen. But above all of this. I want the Five movies to be a set. They can do what ever they want later. "The five movie Blue Ray 3-D Box Set" ( by the way I heard that the first flat panel 3-D televisions hit the market at the end of last year,) will come along I am sure but here at the beginning of all things I do not want to be distracted.
And by the way: No rudeness intended: just a bit of frustration with the topic.We get crotchety when we get old. 
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Feb 14 2010, 10:50am)
|
|
|
7777777
Llednevir
Feb 14 2010, 6:41pm
Post #70 of 117
(19587 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'll put it at the top of my list. TX//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"Something, something, something Darkside. Something, something, something complete."
|
|
|
sphdle1
Rodnog
Feb 15 2010, 12:59pm
Post #71 of 117
(19533 views)
Shortcut
|
some don't want to watch The Hobbit in 3D, however there are many of us that do, and if there are 'options' in theatres for both, why would it be a problem? Those who don't want 3D can go to the regular 2D theatre, but don't wish others not to have 3D in other theatres.
If there are plenty of 2D theatres showing the Hobbit, why would anyone be against having 3D theatres for those who would like that experience..?
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah
Feb 15 2010, 6:19pm
Post #74 of 117
(19659 views)
Shortcut
|
but if what has been said holds true, the movies will not be filmed in 3-D. I do not doubt the Director's statement in regards to this matter.
There may be many good reasons besides those already mentioned on this thread and some of them could be involved in the cost of production. I am sure that cost / benefits analysis is run on these types of things and the outcome of such scrutiny may come down against 3-D in this case. If it does not add to the estimated profits of the two films then the only way that it could happen is if the chosen producer & director insisted adamantly.
Kangi Ska
At night one cannot tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
|
|
