Shooting in 3D is all the rage right now and is a trend that comes and goes. Many think it may be here to stay now… other believe, like all the other times, it will fade away soon. But everyone agrees it is here right now.
Generally speaking, when a film intends on being a 3D film today it’s planned well in advance. Scenes are shot with 3D in mind. The proper gear is used to shoot with 3D in mind. Essentially you shoot the film as a 3D film.
However… with today’s technology, that’s not always the case. Case in point, “Iron Man 2″
Director Jon Favreau always wanted to shoot “Iron Man 2″ in 3D, but for a few reasons didn’t do it, and the film was shot in the traditional manner. Now,the studio is toying with the idea of converting Iron Man 2 into a 3D film utilizing modern technology to do it. Apparently the comic book and film company had one minute of the sequel converted into 3D as a demo that apparently impressed all who saw it. So impressed that they sent out a request to three companies that do this sort of conversion to ask for quotes and more importantly, how long it would take to complete the procedure.
No word yet on it this will happen or not, but it does raise the question: Would you be interested in an Iron Man 2 film that was converted to 3D? (Source: AICN)
Well, I’m going to see the non 3D version first and if I hear enough good things about the 3D one, then I’ll go see it.
The last movie I saw in 3D was Up and it definitely wasn’t planned as a 3D movie by Pixar in advance at ALL. That it was the same thing that’s happening here with Iron Man 2. The movie was made first, then converted to 3D. Only a few times in the whole movie did the 3D effect really stick out at all and even then it didn’t feel worth the extra money we paid. Nothing flew at the screen or anything like that.
Infact, the previews were also in 3D and made in 3D, and they were MUCH cooler and funner to see in 3D then all of the movie. When people asked me how the movie was, I’d say, “it was great, one of the best movies ever. But don’t see the 3D version, hardly any of it was really 3D and isn’t worth the extra money”.
Seems like Disney just made it 3D at the last minute to make some extra cash, when Pixar didn’t feel the need to make the animation 3D friendly in the first place. That it was going to be a great movie and make loads of money, regardless.
Now granted Iron Man 2 is going to be a huge action flick, with many more chances for things to come flying at you then Up had. Like bullets, missiles, Whiplash’s whips, and so forth. But I still can’t help but remain pessimistic after my first experience with the converted 3D in Up.
Personally, I would RATHER see a film that was not intended to be 3d converted to 3d just because for some reason the film makers who intend 3d seem to want to put obligatory “in your face” scenes that otherwise make no sense in the film except to wow you with the arm or bouncing ball coming right at you.
Agreed.
I agree that 3D is a fad and will die out. However, I hate hearing this argument. When sync-sound first came out, would you rather have watched a silent movie that just “happened” to be made with mics on, though the sound contributed in no way to the story? Or how about one that is up-converted into a sound film with dubbing. No, I think we’d all prefer to see a movie that was made with sound in mind, fully utilizing the technology. Otherwise sound movies wouldn’t have grown into what we see them as today.
In my opinion, converting 2D movies to 3D like this is the equivalent of when they started “colorizing” older black and white movies in the 60s. I say 3D should go for it. It probably won’t last long anyway!
Good analogy!
I saw Up in 3D today. Just a gimmick, and in no way is it going to revolutionize the industry. I doubt I’ll be rushing out to see a whole heap of other 3D movies any time soon.
If Iron Man 2 is converted to 3D, I doubt I’d bother.
If the studio think they can recoup their money, and consider it a worthwhile investment, they can be my guest. I won’t complain.
Soon enough the 3D fad will die out, like it has plenty of times before. Iron Man 2 will come out before the fad has ended, and it will be a popular film, and may encourage a lot of people to see it in 3D. So it’s probably a smart move if they get it done.
It was shot in 2D, so I will see it in 2D.
Yh i have never seen a live action film in 3D and im not sure i want to
I don’t think it’s as much as a fad as people saying it is. I say this because the digital 3-D experience can’t really be recreated for a home theater set up, therefore more and more Sci-Fi/ Fantasy films are also being released in 3-D. As for Iron Man II being in 3-D it could add too the film if the filmmakers utilized the technology. Great example, G-Force is the latest 3-D movie I have seen, which in my opinion was a crappy film but it utilized the 3-D technology very well. Compared to the also crappy Monster Vs. Aliens which had one very noticeable 3-D scene. Then there was Up which the 3-D wasn’t 100% noticeable but it enhanced the film, but it’s Pixar which equals perfection.
That 3D can be made for the hometheater setup. There is a device you can get for your computer that works with nvidia video cards that instantly transforms any 3d game into that blurry double vision image that is clarified by the glasses.
They had commercials during the superbowl and an episode of Chuck that uses the glasses.
The camera is no different for 3d than it is for 2d. Its just the print they screen on that camera. There is no reason they cant put that print on a bluray as an option. You can pick up the gray dvd glasses at the dollar stores here.
“The camera is no different for 3d than it is for 2d. Its just the print they screen on that camera.”
Are you talking about stereoscopic 3D, like Cameron uses? Because that is pretty different in both camera used for filming and how it displayed in the end. Regular TVs are not capable of newer 3D technology, hence the new 3D TVs that are coming out or are out.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.
not true – the superbowl commercials utilized red-blue 3D. I had “real D” glasses and tried to watch, but they didn’t work.
besides, 3D is supposed to involved 2 separate images, eye-distance apart, that are projected together. So when they make something 3D from a single image, it usually doesn’t look as good
Stereoscopic is slightly different than Red/Blue 3D. It flashes back and forth between the same scene with two slightly different angles of filming. The polarized glasses either flicker or block out the spectrum of the the opposite shot. The flickering takes place so fast that our brain doesn’t pick up the shots as separate, but rather combines them to create the 3D experience by mimicking the way our eyes see the real world.
Feel free to correct any of that, I running off memory at the moment since I am at work.
I am no techie. I am not 100% up to speed on the latest toys especially those surrounding home theater equipment. From what I have experienced the best studio have to offer for home viewing of a 3-D movie is the traditional Red/Blue 3-D glasses from yesteryear. If I am not mistaking the Coraline DVD came with R/B glasses. Form experience I have only seen digital 3-D glass “Real-D” at the movie theater, hence why you have to pay at lease 2.50$ extra for the 3-D experience, not necessarily to pay for the glasses but for a experience you can’t get at home. All of my friends who have seen the same 3-D movie in theaters and at home, have said the movie theater’s digital 3-D was better and that the R/B glasses doesn’t cut it. So as being a non-techie I vote for digital 3-D…Real-D
This is from Real-D’s website on the subject manner
http://www.reald.com/Content/in-the-home.aspx
Anyone notice that this fad still hasn’t produced any live action 3D movies that weren’t gimmicky shit like My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination, or Journy to the center of the Earth.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. What’s the difference between a “gimmick” and a “technique?”
Nothing. You just happen to like one and not the other. a lot of things we think of as awesome/essential parts of movies now were once “gimmicks” : widescreen, surround sound, IMAX, montage editing, technicolor, sync-sound… the list goes on and on.
In my opinion their utilizing the 3D in that way is exactly the point. The problem is that (MBV aside in my opinion) a lot of the movies ahve just been bad movies. But no worse than Transformers or something, really.
3D is external to the movie itself, I think that’s why people call it a gimmick.
i don’t understand what you mean by that, could you clarify?
well if the movie was made already and the 3d was an after thought then story doesn’t suffer, and if they show a 3d version and 2d version then anybody that doesn’t want to see the 3d version then just see’s it in 2d, I don’t think it should be an issue for anyone. Like john always says a sequel don’t ruin the original. Same thing applies here, just cause there is a 3d version it isn’t going to kill the original 2d version, and hey since it was an afterthought then you don’t have to worry about the scenes looking gimmicky 3d-ish.
I personally dont care if a movie is in 3D or not I would rather see a movie in crystal clear IMAX. However, if studios start completely filming movies in 3D would it cause a decline in piracy at the theater? Just curious… please tell me your thoughts.
That’s the point of this “3-D fad” because digital 3-D can’t be recreated in a home theater situation. I mean there still the crappy red and blue glass technology but the clear digital print can’t be pirated.
keep the 3-D coming…
theres always a choice, straighten out those panties movie nerds!
Hmmm…I’m not for it with Iron Man II.
However, when Marvel and Fox get that Deadpool movie going…now that’s another story.
Yes! 4th wall broken in 3D, nice.
I don’t really care. First of I have poor depth perception so I don’t see that big of a difference. I also don’t have a theater that will play a 3D film for a 6hr radius. A part from that I am all for it. I would prefer 2D but it isn’t about what I want but what the majority of people would want and I think a lot of people would like 3D. If they can make up the difference in the box office then I am all for it.
Fad today, Regret tomorrow.
I hate 3D movies… I don’t know why that is, but it seems that they just aren’t that good. I understand they’re supposed to be more “interactive”, bringing the action closer to you, but to date, I haven’t found one that I liked better than watching it in regular mode.
like Ebert says, all it does is distract with cumbersome glasses and make the colors less vibrant and dim…make a film, not a Universal Studios ride.
I guess I am gonna have to break down and purchase a quality pair of 3D glasses as it looks like they are gonna keep pushin this crap, I feel like there are ulterior motives pushing this technology especially when the newer tv’s will demand an enormous sticker price for anything with 3D on it.
not a good plan. I’ve tried to go back with glasses but they still make you pay full price. after all, you’re paying for “the experience” and not “the glasses”
I’ve mentioned this before, but this is my take:
If a movie was designed from the start to be in 2D, then a 3D version is going to be sub par. Just as if a movie that is planned from the start to be 3D, then its 2D counter part will be sub par.
You might point out that Journey to the Center of the Earth and other planned 3D movies have sucked, but I counter that with their 2D counter parts sucking more.
Now does any of this mean that Iron Man 2 or any other 2D movie should not be made into 3D? No, I just wouldn’t expect it to be as good as or better than the 2D version. However, this will open up another medium for the movie to be seen in and there will be those that will pay to see it as such. I say go for it, why not? Sure it means more money spent, but if they think there is a portion of the audience that wants to see it as such then they should be able to make that money back.
This is one of the most even handed comments I’ve read on here. Kudos!
I’m not shelling out the extra money for 3D. I was moderately entertained watching the first Iron Man without 3D, I expect the same for the sequel.
Have you seen any recent films in 3D? If so, did you think it adds to the experience, or is it not worth the money?
I’ve never cared for dishing out extra dollars for 3D. I’ve been floored by 2D films in cinema for years, I’ll enjoy 2D films the same way for years to come.
I watched Up first in regular then watched it again in 3D and preferred the regular film more. It looked more realistic to me and I got more out of it being non-3D. So Iron Man 2 in 3D would be a NO.
Maybe they’ll redo 10 in 3d now… with Bo Derek running down the beach. Sorry, what were we talking about?
I don’t know why they didn’t shoot it in 3d. For me, seeing a film in 3d brings back the thrill of getting of my arse to go to a theater. Otherwise it’s just not much better than watching it at home on blu-ray. Every tentpole movie should be 3d from now on, and I believe that by next summer they’ll all be shooting 3d.
i dont really care, just give me a good solid story. :)
Hell yes. Best part would be that because it wasn’t filmed with 3D in mind, there won’t be any cheesy 3D gimmicky scenes or shots. It’ll be just as good as it was ever planned to be, just with the characters and background scenery in 3D.
Thank you. A 3D movie is always better when it’s not ‘in your face’ about being 3D, so to speak.
I don’t think I’ve seen a 3D film for a while. I love it though. Can’t wait to see Avatar in 3D
Ehh idk how that’ll turn out
Like it or not it looks like this will be the next big trend in the industry
chuck
Yeah… just like all those other times 3D revolutionized the film industry. No, wait… it was always just a fad each of those times as well.
not really.
Honestly, 3d takes away from the movie at times. As well, if 3D is really just a fad, than it’s a waste of money, time, and will cause it to be less enjoyable in the future.
I agree 100%. And than the director is thinking more about effects and less on story fuck that.
Not true. This was already shot in a traditional format with no 3D in mind. Now your probably right when films are going for 3D from the start that they worry about other things like effects instead of story, but since this one wasn’t originally shot in 3D, I think (hopefully) he story will be the main emphasis. Then again, it is a summer blockbuster, so how much emphasis on story can we expect?