Has Christopher Nolan Turned the 3D Argument? 381
brumgrunt writes "Not only has Christopher Nolan resisted pressure to make his third Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, in 3D, but his explanation is very much centered on it being the right decision to suit the film. With Harry Potter (temporarily) abandoning 3D too, has Hollywood's latest bandwagon hit the skids already?"
HP (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason that Harry Potter has "abandoned" 3D is because they couldn't retro-fit it into the latest instalment in time for the planned release date. They're still fully intending to go back and 3D all the old films plus this latest one and re-release them to cash in.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let's face it (Score:4, Informative)
3-D is waning. It's not they money maker they thought it was. People are not paying for the 3-D movie, they are opting for the 2-D movie instead.
Again RTFA, because Warner Bros. got their ass handed to them for Clash Of The Titans and The Last Airbender, they were not eager to push 3-D.
So yes 3-D is a fad. When DIRECTORS WANT 3-D, 3-D will take over, NOT when STUDIOS WANT 3-D.
Re:Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:3, Informative)
It's much much cheaper to shoot in 3D than to do it in post-processing. I honestly don't know why he cares - you can always shoot the film in 3D and show it in 2D if you like.
Re:3D is lame (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to be conflating options two and three. Theaters can use cheap polarized glasses that indeed cost a couple of dollars at most. But the type of 3D where refresh rate matters requires glasses that can switch between black and clear perfectly in sync with your television, which as you say must be 120hz or more. THAT hardware isn't going to be cheap. (And to use the polarization-type 3D at home you'd need a special screen that I don't think you can buy at this point.)
Re:Here's to hoping (Score:4, Informative)
So basically, you've seen ONE movie where it wasn't thrown in "just because". UP and Coraline were entirely computer-generated video, and re-rendering with the "camera" in a different position is a matter of tweaking a couple of settings. They could re-make ANY all-CGI film (Ice Age, Wall-E, etc) as 3D if they still had the original files and rendering programs. And probably make money on them.
(Note: Avatar used lots of computer-generated imagery...but not exclusively, and did a lot more with motion capture than is normal.)
Have you even seen Coraline [wikipedia.org]? It was produced via stop-motion, using 3D cameras. There were some digital effects, but not many. So, no. For Coraline, it wasn't thrown in "just because."
Re:Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:4, Informative)
There's a lot more to it than that. Shooting in 3D limits the number of in-camera effects that are available and requires the director to make hard choices about focus and focal points. Once principal production is complete (with those limitations) all of the post-production needs to take the 3D projection into account. Having to project in 3D is going to affect every edit, effect, and color grading. It's a lot of extra work to shoot in 3D and then actually project in 2D.
Re:Feel Around (Score:2, Informative)
Oh come on! Why was I modded troll here? This is from a cult classic film "Kentucky Fried Movie! [imdb.com]" I thought it was funny, anyways.
Re:Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:5, Informative)
Says you. A CGI professioanl says shooting stereoscopic is more expensive [gizmodo.com]. Who am I going to believe?
Re:Let's face it (Score:5, Informative)
3d is no more of a gimmick then sound or color. 3d does make them a lot of extra money. Book money not speculation money.
3d is atoll that is now here to stay. It won't be used for all movies, but there will probably always be at least one or two movies using it.
Re:Let's face it (Score:3, Informative)
Except that you are wrong.
Lot's of people like it. Espcially younger people; which is where most of the movie going money comes from.
Re:Let's face it (Score:2, Informative)
hahaha you're the only one defending it here and there.
The reality is, sound and color and not like 3d. Sound and color are huge jumps in technology, and they're also big changes to how it works.
3d is both old, and not a substantial change. Also, the versions we have of it, mean pretty much nothing. Current 3d as it exists isn't much more advanced than the 3d of the 50s, the 3d of the 80s, and has the same issues: doesn't work for everyone, eyestrain, it affects the image, requires special hardware in some form or another, all of these cause their own problems.
Real 3D, in the way people think of 3D, would be substantially different and would garner more interest. Why do we not do that? Because it's a lot harder to do that.
I don't know why you magically think 3d is here to stay, but it's already on the way out. enjoy your supposed 3d (when it's really 2d with stereoscopic dithering).
Re:Don't ask the monkey, ask the organ grinder (Score:3, Informative)
It's more expensive to shoot in 3d. It's a lot harder to shoot in 3d. It's fairly cheap to get low end VFX companies to underbid each other to do a crummy 6 week stereoscopic conversion.
Either in camera or post done cheaply looks like shit. Post done well looks okay, but in camera done well will always blow it out of the water.
The real problem is a lack of Film crews experienced and able to shoot 3d in camera well. Combined with an INCREDIBLE variety of camera rigs and technology, shooting in 3d is no picnic.
Re:Here's to hoping (Score:1, Informative)
So basically, you've seen ONE movie where it wasn't thrown in "just because". UP and Coraline were entirely computer-generated video, and re-rendering with the "camera" in a different position is a matter of tweaking a couple of settings. They could re-make ANY all-CGI film (Ice Age, Wall-E, etc) as 3D if they still had the original files and rendering programs. And probably make money on them.
(Note: Avatar used lots of computer-generated imagery...but not exclusively, and did a lot more with motion capture than is normal.)
Have you even seen Coraline [wikipedia.org]? It was produced via stop-motion, using 3D cameras. There were some digital effects, but not many. So, no. For Coraline, it wasn't thrown in "just because."
Coraline was not produced using 3D cameras. It was produced with Nikon N80s, and Redlake cameras. The stereoscopic image pairs were taken by using motion control rigs (some multi-axis, some simple A/B position only) to move the cameras between right-eye/left-eye. It would have been much simpler, and far less time-consuming, to have done it as a 2D stop-mo flick, as it would have eliminated half of the necessary exposures (and believe me, that does add up). Coraline was done in 3D "just because," though the "because" was (IIRC; I wasn't party to the decision making process) a desire to show off the artistry of the sets and puppets, in addition to doing something never done before (i.e. a 3D stop-mo film).
Yes, I have a screen credit for Coraline.
Re:3D is lame (Score:4, Informative)
Theaters can use cheap polarized glasses that indeed cost a couple of dollars at most. But the type of 3D where refresh rate matters requires glasses that can switch between black and clear perfectly in sync with your television, which as you say must be 120hz or more. THAT hardware isn't going to be cheap.
No, those glasses with switching are very cheap indeed - I got them for free with an old ATI All-in-wonder graphics card. I still have them in a cupboard in the corridor.