quote:Warner Bros Pictures has made the decision to release "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1" in 2D, in both conventional and IMAX theaters, as they will not have a completed 3D version of the film within their release date window.
"Despite everyone's best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality. We do not want to disappoint fans who have long-anticipated the conclusion of this extraordinary journey, and to that end, we are releasing our film day-and-date on November 19, 2010 as planned. We, in alignment with our filmmakers, believe this is the best course to take in order to ensure that our audiences enjoy the consummate 'Harry Potter' experience.
Producer David Heyman said, "For 10 years, we have worked alongside Alan Horn and the studio, whose priority has always been to preserve the integrity of Jo Rowling's books as we have adapted them to the screen, and this decision reflects that commitment."
Director David Yates continued, "This decision, which we completely support, underscores the fact that Warner Bros. has always put quality first."
As scheduled, on July 15, 2011, we will deliver to conventional and IMAX theaters our final installment of the film franchise, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2," in both 2D and 3D formats.
It is also reported by filmonic.com that the studio didn't "want the same backlash Clash of the Titans received earlier this year from a poor quality rushed conversion."
If Part 2 is going to be released in 3D, why not also release Part 1 in 3D, since both movies have already been filmed, and it should be no harder to convert one to 3D than the other? If the complaint is lack of time to do Part 1 in 3D properly, then take the time needed, and have a re-release in 3D later on when it is ready. Then they can market three movies! Think of all the extra money made by Peter Jackson's crew in The Lord of the Rings when they released the theatrical versions to DVD, then later extended versions to DVD. I do not think they would lose money if they released the theatrical 2D version of Part 1 on Nov. 19 as scheduled, then perhaps released a 3D version some time early in 2011. Maybe it is different for theatrical releases than it is for release on DVD--but I would go see both the 2D version and then the 3D version when it came out.
If it is possible to convert already filmed movies into 3D (they must be using computer calculated/generated graphics), then what other movies that already exist would it be good to convert to 3D? Imagine LOTR in 3D! Or Aliens!
According to filmonic.com, "Warner Bros. is currently in the process of converting Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince into 3D for a Blu-ray release sometime in the future." This apparently will require special, expensive 3D televisions.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Adding 3D when its not filmed with that in mind generally sucks, also they probably will release part 1 in 3d, eventually, just not at the sametime as part 2, they will wait for the bluray release probably.
IP: Logged |
posted
Given the option, I will always choose NOT to see a film in 3D due to motion sickness. Post-production 3D is a waste of time and feels very much like a rip-off.
I think they're better off backing out of 3D altogether.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add my voice to the "I hate 3D" chorus, if there is such a chorus. I find it disorienting and I hate having to wear two pairs of glasses at once. I actually watched part of Avatar without the 3D glasses because it gave me less of a headache than watching it properly. And I will stay well, well clear of any movie not filmed especially for 3D, because the after the fact conversion would make it so much worse.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If it is possible to convert already filmed movies into 3D (they must be using computer calculated/generated graphics), then what other movies that already exist would it be good to convert to 3D? Imagine LOTR in 3D! Or Aliens!
The original Jaws has been mentioned as being re-released in 3D.
If they do, I will burn an effigy of the Universal Studios logo.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree ten times over with most of what has been said here. I actually really, really liked Avatar in 3D, but I've tried to watch three or four movies in 3D since and all of them were ruined by it.
I liken the difference to a comparison between Avatar and old TV specials in the 90s with 3D. Remember the episode of Home Improvement or other stuff where they did special episodes and spent the ENTIRE episode just throwing crap at the screen because they could? Avatar never tossed anything at you as a gimmick, it was always just about adding the third dimension for the sake of depth and immersion in what was clearly a visual (if not storytelling) masterpiece. I can appreciate it for that. Adding 3D onto a movie that was not filmed intentionally for it ruins the immersive effect, and ends up making the whole visual experience far too jarring to be enjoyable.
I might go see The Hobbit in 3D, but it'll be really iffy. More likely I'll see it regularly first and then try the 3D. Other than that, nothing is coming out in the next two years that even slightly interests me in 3D. However, there are a number of movies I think I'd enjoy in IMAX 2D.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I submit that the LOTR films could have been a fantastic use of smell-o-vision. Can you imagine how cool it might have been when every time there was a scene in Mordor you suddenly smelled sulfur?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, that may be true, but there would undoubtedly be some members of the audience who would be nauseated and sickened by "sulfer smells" and the like, and more than a few lawsuits could be filed.
Those who inveigh against 3D, sound too much like the people who used to inveigh against colorizing classic black and white movies. I'll take color over black and white any day, as long as the colors are true, and not distractingly inaccurate. As computerized graphics becomes more sophisticated with improving software and higher-speed, larger capacity computers, the 3D effect should be more and more believable. The data for 3D can be extrapolated from the data present in the 2D image. Software can be given some of the abilities of AI to "intuit" situations where the data needs to be modified from a straightforward extrapolation, so the input of the original director becomes less necessary.
But I agree that it would be better if in the future all movie are shot with dual cameras, with an eye toward 3D publication, to begin with.
Now if they would just standardize the best process for displaying 3D on television screens, and bring down the price of the TVs with this capability, then we could have more HD DVDs and Blue-Ray editions released in 3D. Everything needs to be in place for the price to start coming down, and the technology to become more widespread.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who inveigh against 3D, sound too much like the people who used to inveigh against colorizing classic black and white movies.
Well, to be honest, I don't agree with doing that either. There are certain films that should remain sacred... How would you react if they colorized Dr. Strangelove, for example, just because they can?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would sing We'll Meet Again while pushing all the buttons marked "ICBM - Target Hollywood" in my secret underground lair.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who inveigh against 3D, sound too much like the people who used to inveigh against colorizing classic black and white movies.
Well, to be honest, I don't agree with doing that either. There are certain films that should remain sacred... How would you react if they colorized Dr. Strangelove, for example, just because they can?
Moreover, there's a huge difference between colorizing a movie filmed in B&W (which frequently looks bizarre and awful) and filming initially in color (which I'm all for).
Similarly, movies shot in 3-D (as IMAX films have been for years) are quite different from 2-D films converted to 3-D (which generally look awful).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If the quality was fine I wouldnt mind coloring it just to get the different perspective.
IP: Logged |
posted
Does the color of a movie really offer a different perspective? Does the plot, characters, story, etc... change radically if it's suddenly in color?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nighthawk--is there any advantage to our eyes being able to perceive color as opposed to simply perceiving black and white? We do have both kinds of receptors in our eyes. The black and white receptors are mainly used in low light situations.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Does the color of a movie really offer a different perspective? Does the plot, characters, story, etc... change radically if it's suddenly in color?
Objectively, no. But storytelling relies on the emotional response of the audience, which can be greatly affected by the use of color or even 3D perspective. This is why directors have to pay attention to camera angle, lighting, and scenery detail even though they are irrelevant to the plot and the characters.
A good example is The Wizard of Oz, which uses the transition from black-and-white to color to communicate the wonder of the new setting and contrast it to the bland, monochromatic Kansas. Viewers watching the all-black-and-white version would not experience the awe of the sudden brightness of color, and so the overall experience of the movie legitimately changed.
An example in the opposite direction, just to show that the principle works both ways, is the film noir style, which really worked best in black-and-white, as it suited the dark and detached mood of the stories. Vibrant colors would be jarring in such a movie,
Applying this idea to 3D (which I think is overused and usually unnecessary, though it has demonstrated potential in capable hands), I first saw How to Train Your Dragon in 3D, which enriched the reality of the characters and the spectacle of the flight and fight scenes, and managed to get me to suspend my disbelief longer. However, when I first saw Avatar, I was unimpressed with the story (which is about as formulaic as How to Train Your Dragon's), and I did not feel as emotionally invested in the characters as I did with the movie I saw in 3D, not because the story was worse (Avatar had an okay story; certainly not brilliant by any measure, but poo-poohing the story is just a fad in response to the admittedly over-hyped nature of the movie), but because they did not seem as real and I wasn't fully engulfed by the spectacle, as the hoards who saw it in 3D apparently were.
Now, 3D probably isn't enough to make or break a story. It has its uses, but isn't a universal sweetener; more often than not, watching a movie in 3D will be more distracting than enriching, so the effect is actually negative. In the movies I mentioned above, the directors cleverly used the pacing of the story and the environment during the action scenes to use the realistic feel of 3D to their advantage. Films originally intended to be watched in 2D (i.e. filmed with 2D cameras) are better off watching in 2D. Case in point: I didn't get any added benefit when I watched the 3D rerelease of the first two Toy Story movies; the incentive to watch them had more to do with the spectacle of the big screen and the shared experience with friends than the spectacle of the 3D.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of being a 3D movie, I enjoyed Resident Evil Afterlife more than Avatar. For one thing, it was half the length. For another thing, well, really, that was about it. But I'd say the 3D in Avatar was very analogous to the effect of putting Sigourney Weaver in blue kitty form. Part of my brain is just too busy going "what the hell?" for me to really be involved with the story.
P.S. My first reaction to this news is "they couldn't get enough money breaking the book into two movies, they also have to have two releases for the first half, one in 2D and one in 3D."
I think it would be interesting to see a colorized version of Harry Potter V. :snerk:
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I wondered if I was the only one to notice the unusually dark lighting in Order of the Phoenix.
