Discussion 3D or not 3D, that is the question?

If the 3D pops out I'll see it in 3D.

 

whether it is in 3-D or not, I will only see it in 2-D. If wanted to go see a 3-D film I'd go see the Muppets in Disney World.
Not that I have a full problem with 3-D, but it is a gimmick. 3D doesn't help performance, but rather distract the audience. Here's something flashy coming at you, in the end you have the general audience rubbing their eyes and their brains and having trouble keeping their attention on the movie. If 3-D can be perfected without the need for glasses then their wouldn't be a problem, but the glasses only hinder the audience in the end. Unless you only go see the movies for the flash content and not the story.

 

I love good 3D ....if ya dont like watch the 2D.

Reminds me of the seniors who come to buy a new TV " I dont want one with that all that surround sound whizzing and popping all around me I cant tell whats happening with all that noise...blah blah".

CGI look 3 times better in 3D I can honestly say I have never been distracted by 3D. " oh what just happened I could'nt follow the story because his hand was reaching out of the scene....???"

Also I luv me some star wars....but if your truley going for the story? maybe not the best choice of movies.

 

Bring on the 3D Star Wars! I'm a big fan of the format (when done well), and I see all the blockbuster sci-fi/fantasy stuff in 3D if it's available. I was astonished to learn, after the fact, that Alice in Wonderland and The Avengers were both post-conversion, because IMO the 3D in those films was close to equal to Avatar.

The conversion technique has come a long way just since Clash of the Titans, which looked very poor, as did Conan which looked awful. On the Avengers commentary track Whedon talks about the difference between good conversion and bad conversion; you have to plan for it photographically/compositionally, and you have to use the right conversion house, the really talented guys that know how to do it.

Whether Ep. VII shoots in-camera or uses a superb, Avengers-level conversion, or a mix of both, I'm confident it will look fantastic on the big screen and I will definitely be seeing it in 3D.

 

I'm more excited to see the new ones in IMAX more than anything. I remember seeing ATOC in IMAX and it was super awesome sitting there looking at that huge screen. The fly over scene in the beginning gave me goosebumps.

 

Irrelevant to me, since I will only see them in 2D.

 

It'll definitely be an IMAX/3D release, I doubt it'll be non-3D IMAX. I would bank they'd shoot it in 3D cuz one of the many aspects of making a Star Wars movie is pushing the technological envelope to the limit. Of course, it is the mouse. They could say "Oh, we pushed the post-conversion envelope to the limit!" or something. Which would be kinda lame. But I really hope they shoot it in 3D. Cuz I do like the format when it's shot like that.

 

Since I want it to be a success, I hope they do it both 2D and 3D but this will really have a lot to do with the box office climate of 2015. It does make sense though since I-VI will be released in 3D by that point.
One thing I think would be cool for the entire future of the industry would be using alternate angles for particular scenes in the 2D cut. One thing that sucks when watching something shot for 3D is when certain scenes make no sense when watched in 2D, like something coming towards the screen could just shown at a regular vantage point. Just an idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

First few times seeing EP7 will be in 2-D,then I'll go 3-D a couple times,then IMAX 3-D the rest.

 

I want IMAX all the way hearing all the star wars noises in those huge speakers. 3D only to see a light speed scene pop out the screen. But IMAX 3-D to me isn't really IMAX. The real IMAX experience has no 3-D

 

Anybody doubting 3D should watch Life of Pi in an IMAX3D theatre. The IMAX 3D is much better than the real3D because the glasses are active and more expensive. They filmed it using 3D cameras like Hugo and Avatar rather than trying to extract 3D from a 2D image in post. The results when filmed in 3D are very lifelike.

Watching that was like experiencing a ship wreck. My memories now include the experience of crashing at sea and waking up to a tiger.

PS - Best movie ending in years. We're talking Usual Suspects good.

 

I'm not that psyched for filming in IMAX, if it means jacking with the aspect ratio. Besides, it's not like these flicks are going to be filming sweeping helicopter shots of Hong Kong.

 

If it was first filmed in 3D like Hugo or Avatar then I'm fine. If it's a shoddy post-conversion job like Clash of the Titans or Alice in Wonderland I will spill tears of agony.

 

No more 3D. It was neat with Avatar but got old fast.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that Disney will insist on all of the sequel trilogy and spinoffs be released in 3D (and probably 3D-IMAX) to make the most money. The questions are: 1) whether or not the movies will be shot in 3D or post converted and 2) if the 3D will be any good.

What do you guys think? What format would you most want to view the movies in?

Mav Edit: As there have already been several threads on this topic, I'm going to merge this thread with one of the more general 3D discussions.

 

I don't think Disney will simply do it to "make the most money", but to push the technology. Let's not forget Lucas has been a strong proponent in the advances of 3D:
http://www.movieweb.com/news/george-lucas-and-james-cameron-highlight-3d-films-at-showest
These are creative people who seek to challenge themselves and be pioneers. They don't want just plain blockbuster releases. They are always looking to do something people haven't seen before.

 

_ _ _ _

If they wish to release the films in 3D then I imagine that it would be advantageous to shoot in 3D rather than having to spend ages afterwards on converting the 2D film to 3D. To be frank, I'm not that bothered but when we're finally able to watch the entire nine film saga at home in a decade or so, it would be nice to be able to watch all nine - PT, OT and ST - in the same format.

 

As long as it comes 2D then cool. Would like to watch 3D IMAX 48fps D Box version of Star Wars VII- better get saving now.

 

Made for 3D movies generally have a lot of in-your-face moments and scenes which are painfully obvious filmed in a way to give the 3D audience an eyegasm.
If they are so desperate for extra tickets, then they should do a post-conversion.
But of course that won't happen, since there are lots of people around who are impressed by shiny effects (in the era of CGI - I know, it's ironic) and would buy tickets twice as expensive just to wear stupid glasses while watching a 2D screen.
Because, as we all know, it is the 3D that makes a movie good, not the story or the characters. Which is why a lot of the good, classic '70s and '80 movies were shot in 3D and were successful. Oh wait...

 

Get real. I'm a fan of the technology and love 3D movies when the 3D is good. But the majority of Disneys live action 3D releases were shot in 2D and post-converted to 3d with varrying results. Anytime a movie is shot in 2D and then converted to 3D, the primary reason is money. If you post-convert to release to IMAX, you make even more money.

Your quoting Lucas is irrelevant since he's not really going to be involved in these movies at all (unless his input is requested). The only confirmed director we have for any of the movies is JJ Abrams, who only agreed to post-convert star trek 2 into 3D because the studio made him. A movie like prometheus was shot in 3D, so you can say it was Ridley Scott wanted to 'challenege himself and be a pioneer. You can't really say the same of directors who shot in 2D and then post-convert to 3D under studio pressure.

A star wars movie shot in 3D would be amazing, especially if JJ employed 3D similar to how Scott did with Prometheus. The 3D was immersive without ever being distracting. Im less enthused if Star Wars movies are shot in 2D and post-converted. However, if they are post-converted, i'm sure it will be done very well. Disney will not allow sub-par work to be done on what will probably be the studios biggest movie EVER.

 

Lucas/Lucasfilm, whatever. The company isn't just going to abandon the endeavor, be it with this movie or others, just because Lucas sold it. Each SW film, even the OT, used many innovations. That's one of the trademarks of STAR WARS, from motion control to digital doubles. As for Disney's use, Disney filmed Tron: Legacy in 3D; many of the other films post-converted were the classics re-released or films made just before the 3D trend really took off with the popularity of Avatar. Bottom line is it is highly likely the new movies will be made in 3D because it is being perceived as more than just a visual gimmick, and the referencing of quotes by not just Lucas but others from that panel was relevant. Besides, what's your point? Saying the reason would be "to make more money" implies that would be the only reason like so many tend to spout. It can still be a major reason but it's not like they are in business to purposely take losses.

 

It doesn't matter to me. I really don't like 3D anyway bc I wear glasses & its hard for me to use the 3D glasses. :-(

 

I had an interesting chat with my buddy who say The Hobbit in 3D, when I saw it in 2D.

I LOVED the Hobbit in 2D. Thought it looked great.

He said in 3D it was *too much* and was hard to follow because there was too much going on with the frame rate and 3D and it took you *out* of the movie.

I vote no 3D. Its still way more of a gimmick than anything to me at this point. And I think its more of a distraction then anything good.

-C

 

I clearly stated my point. JJ Abrams is directing EP7 and has gone on record as saying he doesnt like 3D and didnt want to shoot star trek in 3D, but Paramount made him. Now that he's made the movie, he's of course supporting the use of 3D in Star Trek, but its obvious Abrams isnt the biggest fan of the medium. Studios like 3D becaues it makes them more money, but i dont want to see a movie where the director is forced to post convert a movie. The movie i'm watching is not the directors vision, but the studios. My point is that i want the director to decide if the movie will be 2D or 3D. If JJ WANTS to shoot in 3D and thats his vision, then i'm all for it.

 

I agree to a point. I hate 3-d movies, personally. My mind tends to pay attention to the plot and atmosphere OR the "wow factor" and not both. Thing is though 3D movies also have 2D versions so who cares? Abrams will NOT use 3D, though. He hates it. It's not up to him though, is it.