Chillen yet confused
New member
As it is being filmed in 3D, can it be shown in 2D?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pirates 4 to be filmed in 3D..why?
- Thread starter Flying_Tarotot
- Start date
coolcranberry
New member
The big Hollywood studios say they haven't got the money to make independent films and blockbusters so they make them in 3D so they can charge more at the box office.
There's a simple answer. If a film does well, it gets sequal to get more money out it. If a format does well, other studios follow suit. Nothing to do with good movies anymore but simply catching on a trend.
Then again this is not the first time they've gone down the 3D route. Tv makes want them to make the movies, so they can sell the tvs. However the whole thing is flawed and I don't see it lasting.
Good example, think its LG (might be someone else) using Avatar to promote a 3D television and then telling everyone Avatar can't be shown in 3D. If the biggest 3D movie cant be shown in 3D whats the point?
Then again this is not the first time they've gone down the 3D route. Tv makes want them to make the movies, so they can sell the tvs. However the whole thing is flawed and I don't see it lasting.
Good example, think its LG (might be someone else) using Avatar to promote a 3D television and then telling everyone Avatar can't be shown in 3D. If the biggest 3D movie cant be shown in 3D whats the point?
texas2sweetie
New member
Pirates is a cg film practically. They reworked half the actors faces in the last couple. I honestly don't care either way as long as it makes more sense than the last one. That was just ridiculous. The first two were fun though.
Normally I would hate that a 4th film was being made like this but they KNOW the ball was dropped on the last one so they've got that to make up for. As for the 3D aspect, most directors don't want to use it at all but the studios are obviously putting the pressure on because they've seen how much money Avatar made with the format. The thing is, Avatar was shot at the highest level by master director James Cameron, if you get everyone to use 3D it's always going to be as good as the director can make it.
The two Hobbit films are likely going to be shot in 3D for this reason. Guillermo del Toro already said he would rather they didn't shoot 3D but obviously the studio will say do it or we won't give you the money. 3D is a stupid craze that only really works for a handful of films.
The two Hobbit films are likely going to be shot in 3D for this reason. Guillermo del Toro already said he would rather they didn't shoot 3D but obviously the studio will say do it or we won't give you the money. 3D is a stupid craze that only really works for a handful of films.
3D is the next stage in the entertainment evolution, one day (in the not too far future) ALL feature films will be made for the 3D market. The fact that something is made in 3D should not effect the quality of the editorial/story and one day it will seem very dated to watch 2D movies, just like it is now to watch black & white or non-widescreen TV now.
I simply don't understand why anyone would not embrace these developments? You cannot stand still in the Film & TV market, if you do you are doomed to be out of date and irrelevant very quickly. Media of all types are constantly evolving. I would strongly argue that adding another dimension to the cinema or home TV market will make the experience more real, more immersive and more enthralling to watch which can only be a good thing.
You are comparing apples and pears by the way if you think that a film shot in 2D and converted into 3D will look half as good as any film shot in 3D. If the correct cinema techniques are used by the DOP there is not reason why you will not be blown away by the images, and this applies the GCI or real action, I assure you I know this from working in the industry!
Don't harp on about the past... It's gone!
Embrace the future.. It's just around the corner now and its coming this way fast in 3D!
Even further into the future we may be having this conversation about holographic images, I can't wait for that either!
I simply don't understand why anyone would not embrace these developments? You cannot stand still in the Film & TV market, if you do you are doomed to be out of date and irrelevant very quickly. Media of all types are constantly evolving. I would strongly argue that adding another dimension to the cinema or home TV market will make the experience more real, more immersive and more enthralling to watch which can only be a good thing.
You are comparing apples and pears by the way if you think that a film shot in 2D and converted into 3D will look half as good as any film shot in 3D. If the correct cinema techniques are used by the DOP there is not reason why you will not be blown away by the images, and this applies the GCI or real action, I assure you I know this from working in the industry!
Don't harp on about the past... It's gone!
Embrace the future.. It's just around the corner now and its coming this way fast in 3D!
Even further into the future we may be having this conversation about holographic images, I can't wait for that either!
Erm...maybe!
I refer you to this which I copied and pasted onto the thread about Shrek 4.
+++
Shrek Forever After debuted far, far below the mighty starts of some of its predecessors, grossing an estimated $71.3 million on approximately 9,500 screens at 4,359 locations, which was the broadest launch ever for an animated movie.
Shrek the Third still holRAB the record for highest-grossing animated opening with $121.6 million, followed by Shrek 2 at $108 million and The Simpsons Movie at $74 million. Shrek Forever After ranks fourth on that list, although, in terms of estimated attendance, it would barely make the Top 20.
Audience erosion was to be expected for Shrek Forever After, given the historic difficulty in maintaining attention for a blockbuster franchise over time combined with the mixed reception for Shrek the Third. However, opening 41 percent lower than last movie despite the 3D ticket price boost was alarmingly severe. In terms of attendance, the slip was even more extreme: down 59 percent.
Shrek Forever After played at a record number of 3D sites (2,373), which accounted for 61 percent of business. Included in that was a record IMAX site count (194), and IMAX made up seven percent of the gross. The 3D and IMAX ticket price premiums added around $13 million. That means Forever After may have had the least-attended opening yet for a Shrek movie. Though the first movie's debut was the lowest-grossing at $42.3 million, that was the equivalent of an estimated 7.5 million tickets or more than Forever After's estimate.
Though redubbed "The Final Chapter" by its marketing, Shrek Forever After came off as just another Shrek to moviegoers. Pushing an alternate version of the characters amounted to a fantasia on the franchise, but it didn't appear to move the story forward, appealing mostly to the core audience and few else. The campaign banked on 3D to give the movie extra kick, but 3D is not a draw in and of itself. It's shown to be mostly a revenue enhancer, and the movies themselves are the real attractions. If a movie doesn't seem special like Forever After, the 3D price premium may even be a deterrent.
+++++
There was negative comments about the 3D in Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans (yes I know it wasn't filmed in 3D) and now an established film such as Shrek hasn't had the wow factor with 3D.
Peopel got caught up in the hype and sweep with Avatar. Already the novelty is starting to wear off and people are more interested in is the film an event and one I want to see regardless of the 3D.
3D is a novelty/gimmick and will remain a novelty/gimmick until they stop making a big deal about it.
They don't market a film saying coming soon a movie with a running time of 114 minutes. They don't market a film saying coming soon a movie filmed entirely using outdoor locations.
They don't promote a film with coming soon a movie with orchestral scores.
Once they stop puting 3D in the title and stop promoting that it's being made in 3D then it can start to be considered as being the norm and not just a gimmick to get people to see the film.
A while back they announced the next narnia film and Gullivers Travels are in 3D. Shouldn't they be promoting it as coming soon an epic cinematic experience? coming soon the blockbuster of the year. For me if they are saying coming soon 3D I wonder what aren't they telling me? We've seen the film, it's good, it;s really good but if it wasn't for the 3D it's only average or ok.
It's like the way Sky are promoting HD.
Get Sky we have HD this and HD that. The programmes are all the same that we been showing the last few years and the majority of the channels show a load of shit that hardly anyone bothers to watch, but the HD stuff is incredible so sign up and get Sky HD.
I refer you to this which I copied and pasted onto the thread about Shrek 4.
+++
Shrek Forever After debuted far, far below the mighty starts of some of its predecessors, grossing an estimated $71.3 million on approximately 9,500 screens at 4,359 locations, which was the broadest launch ever for an animated movie.
Shrek the Third still holRAB the record for highest-grossing animated opening with $121.6 million, followed by Shrek 2 at $108 million and The Simpsons Movie at $74 million. Shrek Forever After ranks fourth on that list, although, in terms of estimated attendance, it would barely make the Top 20.
Audience erosion was to be expected for Shrek Forever After, given the historic difficulty in maintaining attention for a blockbuster franchise over time combined with the mixed reception for Shrek the Third. However, opening 41 percent lower than last movie despite the 3D ticket price boost was alarmingly severe. In terms of attendance, the slip was even more extreme: down 59 percent.
Shrek Forever After played at a record number of 3D sites (2,373), which accounted for 61 percent of business. Included in that was a record IMAX site count (194), and IMAX made up seven percent of the gross. The 3D and IMAX ticket price premiums added around $13 million. That means Forever After may have had the least-attended opening yet for a Shrek movie. Though the first movie's debut was the lowest-grossing at $42.3 million, that was the equivalent of an estimated 7.5 million tickets or more than Forever After's estimate.
Though redubbed "The Final Chapter" by its marketing, Shrek Forever After came off as just another Shrek to moviegoers. Pushing an alternate version of the characters amounted to a fantasia on the franchise, but it didn't appear to move the story forward, appealing mostly to the core audience and few else. The campaign banked on 3D to give the movie extra kick, but 3D is not a draw in and of itself. It's shown to be mostly a revenue enhancer, and the movies themselves are the real attractions. If a movie doesn't seem special like Forever After, the 3D price premium may even be a deterrent.
+++++
There was negative comments about the 3D in Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans (yes I know it wasn't filmed in 3D) and now an established film such as Shrek hasn't had the wow factor with 3D.
Peopel got caught up in the hype and sweep with Avatar. Already the novelty is starting to wear off and people are more interested in is the film an event and one I want to see regardless of the 3D.
3D is a novelty/gimmick and will remain a novelty/gimmick until they stop making a big deal about it.
They don't market a film saying coming soon a movie with a running time of 114 minutes. They don't market a film saying coming soon a movie filmed entirely using outdoor locations.
They don't promote a film with coming soon a movie with orchestral scores.
Once they stop puting 3D in the title and stop promoting that it's being made in 3D then it can start to be considered as being the norm and not just a gimmick to get people to see the film.
A while back they announced the next narnia film and Gullivers Travels are in 3D. Shouldn't they be promoting it as coming soon an epic cinematic experience? coming soon the blockbuster of the year. For me if they are saying coming soon 3D I wonder what aren't they telling me? We've seen the film, it's good, it;s really good but if it wasn't for the 3D it's only average or ok.
It's like the way Sky are promoting HD.
Get Sky we have HD this and HD that. The programmes are all the same that we been showing the last few years and the majority of the channels show a load of shit that hardly anyone bothers to watch, but the HD stuff is incredible so sign up and get Sky HD.
Regardless of whether they rushed into it or did it properly it still doesn't change the fact it's a gimmick to make people pay more to see a film. No matter how great the 3D is it won't stop the film being crap if the storyline is weak, it's full of plot holes, the characterisation of the characters or acting performaances is terrible. For example if AIW was "done properly" would Johnny Depp have been any better in that film as The Mad Hatter?
The fans of it say one day all TV will be in 3D. Great. I can't wait to watch Question Time in 3D. Imagine the thrill of watching QVC in 3D as they try and sell me stuff that's cheaper in the shops assuming it's something I actually want which is rare on QVC or similar channels.
In a desperate ploy to get an extra few quid/dollars there is going to be a whole lot of crap thrown at us in 3D to try and make it more appealing.
I have yet to find anyone that can give me a reason why when you are paying nearly
The fans of it say one day all TV will be in 3D. Great. I can't wait to watch Question Time in 3D. Imagine the thrill of watching QVC in 3D as they try and sell me stuff that's cheaper in the shops assuming it's something I actually want which is rare on QVC or similar channels.
In a desperate ploy to get an extra few quid/dollars there is going to be a whole lot of crap thrown at us in 3D to try and make it more appealing.
I have yet to find anyone that can give me a reason why when you are paying nearly
You make many points that would seem to suggest 3D is not here to stay. Do you really think that the likes of Disney, Sony to name a few would be insisting on 3D production on most new titles if there was no demand for it? Do you think every TV manufacturer is wrong? I think that you will see fairly quickly that 3D is going to take off big time. You are entitled to disagree, but I think you will see the revolution happening within the next fews years and I will put money on it that it will be here to stay. Even a future iphone 3D is possible now, so where do you think it will end?