Pixar to Release All New Movies in 3D

emcron writes "The Walt Disney Co. said Tuesday its Pixar animation studio will commit to 3-D by releasing all of its movies in the format beginning with "Up" in May 2009. Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter made the announcement in New York at a presentation of Disney's upcoming lineup of animated movies."

3D or Stereo?

[MichaelSmith]

For me it can only be 3D if you can walk around the projection and see other sides as if it was a solid object.

The linked wikipedia articles talk about ways of making stereo movies from mono movies but I think our brains already do that without the help of extra hardware.

Re:Why?

[Mprx]

Just because 3d is often used as a gimmick doesn't mean it always has to be that way. It's perfectly acceptable to compose the scenes as though it were a normal movie, without all that objects flying into your face nonsense. The 3d effect will still work, and as it becomes more common people will expect a more subtle treatment. Color was a gimmick once, but now we don't expect every movie to be as colorful as The Wizard of Oz.

4D for 3D again?

[techpawn]

If I wanted the experience so real I could touch it... I'd go outside and touch them. When I go to the movies, I suspend my belief for 2D. Even a live theater gives a flat 2D feel to the stage to a degree. 3-D makes me think the 80's... Next thing you know they'll resell "he-man" and "my little pony"...oh wait

The real question

[Jesus IS the Devil]

The real question on everybody's mind is...

When will we see 3D porn in theaters?

The meaning of 3D

[LS]

It's pretty obvious here that the meaning of 3D is stereoscopic, but it can be confusing to just throw around the term 3D. It can have three meanings in this case:

1. The movie is rendered using 3 dimensional data onto a 2 dimensional plane. yes I know all pixar films have been computer generated, but the less informed might think they might actually do hand drawn cartoons.

2. The movie is rendered/filmed from two perspectives, and viewed for a stereoscopic effect

3. The image is actually projected out into 3 dimensional space. This sounds unlikely, but there are actually some 3 dimension display technologies already available that allow for viewing from from any angle.

Anyway, you get my point, let's be specific when we use the word "3D".

LS

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[electrictroy]

Forget 3D.

I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation. Even if that means they produce only one movie every 3-4 years, I'd still like to see it revived. Hand-drawn art is gorgeous.

Re:Why?

[mwvdlee]

Basically, this whole news release amounts to nothing more than "We're going to render each frame twice". With the second frame's camera slighly offset to the left (since most people have right eye dominance).

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Oktober Sunset]

The big advantage to them doing 1 film every 3-4 years is they might put a bit more thought into the script, and not churn out the same load of cheap gags and unorigional shit all the time.

Re:w00t!

[DECS]

The entire point of theaters going to 3D is to entice people away from their HDTVs with something that is unique and compelling can can't be as easily experienced at home.

That's why Pixar is doing it, and why George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez, Randal Kleiser, and Peter Jackson "implored the exhibition community to invest in digital projectors" to show their upcoming 3D movies.

Of course, at the same time Lucas also told Variety, "We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature-film thing because it's too expensive and it's too risky."

If 3D doesn't help get viewers into the theater, there will be fewer blockbuster movies coming out, and entertainment will shift further toward TV.

Five Ways Apple Will Change TV: 5 - George Lucas Talks Movies [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Trespass]

High quality work is always gorgeous, regardless of the medium.

Re:That 3-D aftertaste...

[smellotron]

I don't think to myself, "you know, this movie is good, but it would be GREAT IN COLOR!" I thought Robin Hood [imdb.com] was great, but that's because it had a great, compelling story.

Color is just sugar coating. It's in the same league as sound. Maybe it can show you something you've never seen before, but it doesn't really expand the story.

Fixed that for you.