The VDT in 3D Poll

[Boy Scout]

I was happy to see that VDT will be in 3D. I just saw "Toy Story 3" in 3D today, the technology has really improved since this new "Real D" first came out. However, some people may not be able to see it in 3D because it can get pretty expensive. Either way it will be a great movie!

[eirin799]

i'm pretty unhappy at this fact, as i find it detracts from the story by overloading with visual effects, which may very possibly mean the plot may have been slacked off about. i don't know, this isn't a very good reason. 3d just...irks me, as does the tendency that people always push toward modernity! and technological advancement! and whatever is newest! bleh. it's like taking a perfectly good film and blurring it to confine viewers to behind a pair of glasses... ehh.

however, i recognise that this means the movie will sell more, if there's a 2d version also released in cinemas, i'll be happy.

[bkey]

The Last Airbender was released today, Hollywood's latest experiment in post-conversion 3D. With the movie getting terrible reviews, one issue that keeps popping up is the quality of the converted 3D. Just as with Clash of the Titans, reviewers are saying that 3D is poorly done and ultimately distracts from the film.

To quote one reviewer: "The results are nothing short of disastrous, soaking the color, brightness and clarity out of every frame in exchange for absolutely nothing. Watching the movie with glasses looks virtually identical to watching it without glasses, only the images are murkier and lack fine detail behind the lenses. There are times, indeed, when you can take the glasses off completely and be better off, not even receiving the halo effect that 3-D typically gives off. If one must go to see "The Last Airbender," avoid the 3-D version like the bubonic plague. It represents the absolute nadir of the format, worse and more useless than even back in the days of cardboard glasses with red and blue lenses. Paramount Pictures should be ashamed of themselves."

Once again we are seeing that 3D conversion done in post-production just doesn't work, and is nothing more than a quick cash grab for film studios.

3D can work. It can really add to a film. Just look at Avatar, How To Train Your Dragon, or Toy Story 3. Unfortunately, these films can't be compared to things like Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender. We keep seeing time and time again that for 3D to work, it has to be a creative decision from the very beginning of the movie-making process, not an afterthought. The film has to be written, designed, directed, and filmed with 3D in mind, and using 3D cameras. This shoddy post-conversion just doesn't work.

Obviously I am going to be seeing VDT in 2D, the way the film was conceived, shot, and meant to be seen. In the end, 20th Century Fox will probably make more money on VDT by releasing it in 3D than they would have if they had only released it in 2D, but I fear that by the time VDT is released, moviegoers will be tired of these studios passing off quick-fix 3D films as the real deal, and VDT' box office numbers will be hurt as a result.

[icarus]

Some of the reviews for The Last Airbender are quite comical - not so much for the criticism of the 3D effects but for the total lambasting of every single aspect of the film, with the possible exception of the set design!

Still, look on the bright side - given that the image quality in much of the VDT trailer looked overly sharp, garish and cheap looking, a nice grey haze added by the 3D glasses might serve to make things look a little better? The Dark Island might even look dark!

[Movie Aristotle]

We keep seeing time and time again that for 3D to work, it has to be a creative decision from the very beginning of the movie-making process, not an afterthought. The film has to be written, designed, directed, and filmed with 3D in mind, and using 3D cameras. This shoddy post-conversion just doesn't work.

Obviously I am going to be seeing VDT in 2D, the way the film was conceived, shot, and meant to be seen.

Ah, but I'm not convinced that VDT wasn't conceived to be a 3D film. I've noticed that Ernie Malik is very adept at avoiding questions. When he was asked if VDT was going to be in 3D he didn't say it wouldn't be in 3D, he only said it wasn't shot in 3D. I don't think that 3D was an afterthought by Fox at all. I think the production knew they would do it in 3D and use the post conversion process all along. The shot of Coriakin thowing the map at the audience in the trailer cliched it for me. Why on earth would they have filmed a shot like that if they had never intended VDT to be in 3D?

[Bookwyrm]

Except they waited to announce that it was going to be 3D-itized after Avatar came out and was such a hit. Maybe they were always planning on doing the conversion, but I think they were waiting until Avatar came out to see if making VDT 3D would increase the money made.

[Movie Aristotle]

Exactly! That way they had all of their bases covered. They could do a 3D movie if they wanted to, or they could stick with a 2D movie if 3D had fizzled before now.

[bkey]

I hope that the conversion was something thought of way in advance and not an afterthought, as it was with Clash of the Titans.

I know a lot of people have blamed the poor 3D in Clash and The Last Airbender on timing, saying that they just didn’t have enough time to complete the conversion process perfectly, and that with the extended time, the 3D conversion for VDT should look fine.

In theory, it’s a good idea, but unfortunately isn’t the case. With Clash, you can somewhat blame the shoddy 3D on the rush job, but those who worked on the process for the Last Airbender claimed they had plenty of time to do the process justice.

The problem is that films shot in 2D are not meant to be seen as 3D films, not only from any ethical viewpoint, but from a technical one as well. The added element of depth that 3D gives significantly lengthens the viewers’ adjustment period for a new shot. To quote reporter Kyle Duvall, “With 3-D adding another element of information for the senses to process, a viewer must be allowed to settle in to each shot more gradually to avoid disorientation, and cuts must be reserved for maximum effect.”

This essentially means that shots, especially during action sequences, have to be longer, with no quick cuts, as to not disorient the viewer. Shots also have to be more stable, no shaky cam, and many of the techniques used when filming action scenes have to be abandoned. If they are not, and the viewers are subjected to quick cuts, etc. this is where the feelings of headache and nausea that are often reported by filmgoers come in.

This adjustment has to be made early, even sometimes in the scripting phase of pre-production.
Another issue is that if a shot is pulled back really far, like for example, a long scenic shot (Which I know there will be many of in VDT), the 3D effect essentially goes away. Quoting again, “the camera also loses the ability to foreground objects, because there is nothing in the foreground to put in the frame. Most of all, the human eye has a tendency to flatten objects seen at extreme distance, even in real life.”

This means that shots have to closer up, without many long distance panoramic views. Landscapes, etc. have to be tightly framed in the shot as to not lose the 3D effect.

Once again, these aspects have to be considered not only when filming, but often in the scripting and set design phases.

Avatar was able to overcome these issues because the film was conceived as a 3D endeavor. Every aspect of the film was designed and carried out with this in mind. When a film is shot in 2D, these obstacles don’t exist. Directors can include wide landscape shots, quick cuts, shaky cam, and many other conventional techniques of modern filmmaking. With 3D post-conversion, you are taking a 2D film and converting to something it is not, without regard to the bona fide differences between the mediums, all for the sake of making a few extra bucks.

[AslanIsOnTheMove]

I keep hearing people talk about how it's all for the money and the film makers are using all these gimmicks to sell VDT and they shouldn't do all that stuff.

I disagree. I don't think it's all about the money. I think they are trying to do what sells, but not because the money is all they care about. We must remember Fox picked up a franchise that was thought to be dying. They kinda have to try a little harder to revive it and get people excited about it again. They need all the money they can get in order to keep making the movies. Can we assume that they are using the money for the stories and not using the stories just to gain more money?

I hear a lot of people saying, VDT is a good enough story that they don't have to use all these gimmicks. I agree, it is a really good story. But you can't tell the adverage movie-goer just how awesome it is without giving everything away.

Why not make a movie with stunning visuals and an awesome story? We already know, if they use the material in the books they have a story better than most things out there. We've read the book. What's the problem if they have effects and things that make people who don't know the story want to see it?

It is Fox. I would hope they know good 3D from bad 3D. Also, it releases in 2D as well, so if people don't like 3D all is still well.

Overall, I think they did the best possible thing releasing it in 2D and 3D. Hopefully they will make more than enough money to do SC and give a huge budget and make it reeeeaaally grand because that's my favorite.

Do what you gotta do and sail on VDT!!!

[bkey]

The thing is, it is all about the money. When a director has spent at least the past year of their life pouring their heart and soul into a project, making it perfect, just the way they envision it, and then the financing studio comes in and says, we're going to change what you've made into something else because we think more people will see it our way than your way, it is all about the money. 20th Century Fox is notorious in the industry for forcing directors to make creative changes to their films, both during production and during post-production, for the sake of reaching a larger audience. The end result is usually a film that is not as good as it would have been had the director been given complete creative control. Just look at the films Kingdom of Heaven, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Taken. All three are films that Fox interfered with. The director's cuts of Taken and especially Kingdom of Heaven are far superior than the studio cuts that were released in theaters.

I can only speculate, but I would imagine that the decision to release VDT in 3D was a 20th Century Fox marketing decision and not, at least initially, a Michael Apted creative decision.

Of course, assuming movie-goers aren't sick of 3D by December, the movie will make more money than it would have had it only been released in 2D. It will make a nice profit, The Silver Chair will be greenlit, and the marketing folks at Fox will give themselves a pat on the back. Fox is obviously making the decision that will ultimately make the movie more financially successful. Whether or not it will be more critically successful is another matter altogether. Hopefully though, the 3D conversion won't hurt the story, and those of us who want to see the movie in 2D won't be affected by the money-grabbing decision.

[icarus]

Having a movie designed for 2D presented slightlly badly in 3D during the 10 week period of its cinematic run for the sake of a bigger boxoffice return? That i can deal with.

Having a movie designed specifically for 3D being reduced to 2D upon home viewing with my 2D TV set and 2D DVD player for the rest of my life - that i cannot deal with.

[Josh]

I don't mind VotDT being in 3d because it seems a film almost needs to be in 3D these days to compete.


Which annoys me. I saw Toy Story 3 and every trailer advertised a 3D movie.

What was so great about Avatar is that is was filmed to be an amazing 3D expirience. 3D films (7 months ago) were not common. So it was cool and it was different.

But once Avatar made the money it did every studio and possible film jumped on the bandwagon and tried to put their films in 3D hoping it would match Avatar's success. As a result we get tons of films with lame rushed conversions.

While VotDT's 3D won't be rushed, it does annoy me that so many film's are coming out in 3D. Soon people will get sick of it.

I just think all of these conversions are an insult to Avatar. I really hope this whole 3D fad only lasts through 2010. That way when a real 3D movie is made, people can enjoy it...instead of confusing it with a horrible conversion.

[bkey]

2 Thumbs up on your post Josh.

I think it's really a conundrum for studios. For blockbusters, they basically have the option of either releasing a film in 3D, even if it hurts the integrity of the final product in order to be competitive and make money, or release a film in 2D, knowing that you might lose out to other studios releasing 3D films.

Hopefully, as you said, the novelty will wear off and studios will listen to moviegoers who don't want every film to be in 3D. That way, when something really special like Avatar comes along, it will be that much better.

[CorazonBandido55]

I think VDT is being unfaily judged before the product even comes out. YES, Clash of the Titans and The Last Airbender had questionable 3D effects, but both movies were converted within 6-8 weeks of post production time. Lets remember that VDT will go through 6-8 MONTHS of post production time. I remember that when Last Airbender was announced to be converted to 3D, I calculated that it would only get roughly the same amount of time in post-conversion that Clash of the Titans would get. So I kind of knew that criticism was coming. VDT will be almost unprecedented in the amount of time is was spent in post-3D conversion. Don't worry everyone, it will look fine. And if your still not convinced, just go watch it in 2D...Problem solved! Don't know what country any of you are from but in US this is a free country. 3D does not have a monopoly.

[LuvNarnia]

I've never seen a 3D movie before so I am really excited for two reasons: one I have never seen one before so I want to see one (obviously), and two its like going to be my favorite movie so I am glad its in 3D! Does 3D really look that bad?

[DOECOG]

Does 3D really look that bad?

Avatar is the only 3D movie I’ve ever seen. It was shot for 3D so it didn’t have the problem that films converted to 3D in post production have. There were time when I thought the 3D looked nice, but most of the time I didn’t really notice it. I like 3D when it’s done right, but even then I wonder if it’s worth the extra money for the ticket.

I will probably see VDT in 3D because if I don’t see it in 3D in theatres it’s not like I can rent it in 3D later if I want to. I’ll probably see it in 2D first though.