• Peter Jackson Filming The Hobbit Entirely In 3D!
    89 replies, posted
No one wants to buy a set of $50 glasses to look at their $2000 3d televisions.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26376703]Why do you people think that 3d = instant cheap tricks? Making it 2d doesn't magically remove any cheap tricks. The only difference between 3d and 2d is that 3d is shot with 2 cameras, that's all. What tricks are you talking about?[/QUOTE] Unnecessary closeups, unnecessary slow motion battles, unnecessary explosions, etc. It just seems when a film is 3D, it's all about making sure everyone knows it's 3D, instead of just focusing on the proper camera angles and story telling. For example, Inception was not in 3D, and it was a fantastic movie. While Avatar was, and it shows that it was definitely made to be a 3D movie, and it's story reflects that. The only people who seem to do this whole 3D thing right is Pixar. They don't seem to make it obvious you're watching a 3D movie. I actually saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and forgot I was watching it in 3D a 3rd of the way in. Lets just hope Peter Jackson uses 3D just for what it is and doesn't make the movie into a gimmicky mess.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;26376811]Unnecessary closeups, unnecessary slow motion battles, unnecessary explosions, etc. It just seems when a film is 3D, it's all about making sure everyone knows it's 3D, instead of just focusing on the proper camera angles and story telling. For example, Inception was not in 3D, and it was a fantastic movie. While Avatar was, and it shows that it was definitely made to be a 3D movie, and it's story reflects that.[/QUOTE] because it's a brand new technology jesus fucking christ do I need to spell it out for you [editline]28th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26376742]No one wants to buy a set of $50 glasses to look at their $2000 3d televisions.[/QUOTE] price will go down as competition increases and cost of production goes down
[QUOTE=Kalibos;26376844]because it's a brand new technology jesus fucking christ do I need to spell it out for you [/QUOTE] What's a brand new technology? 3D films have been around since the 50's.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;26376906]What's a brand new technology? 3D films have been around since the 50's.[/QUOTE] :sigh: we're not talking about the same technology [B]at all[/B]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;26376092]there is a reason 3D died in the '80's[/QUOTE] yeah, because they used red-and-blue filters
[QUOTE=Kalibos;26376915]:sigh: we're not talking about the same technology [B]at all[/B][/QUOTE] Ok then what technology are you talking about? The RED camera thing? Ok that's cool but I'm just saying that 3D movies have a bad track record so far. I'm just hoping Jackson doesn't abuse it is all. I'm sure he won't. He's made some of the best films of all time and anything that he's associated with turns out wonderful.
I like 3D but mostly the kind with depth perception.
[QUOTE=Itszutak;26376933]yeah, because they used red-and-blue filters[/QUOTE] Uhh actually they used Polarized 3D glasses since the 50's.
I'm sure it will be a good movie regardless.
Uh, well I'm excited. I've read the book only like, six hundred times. Don't think I'll go for the 3D shit though, I'll just see the 2D screening.
God damn it. 3D movies hurt my fucking eyes, enough with this shit already!
[QUOTE=The_Marine;26377069]God damn it. 3D movies hurt my fucking eyes, enough with this shit already![/QUOTE] You have to watch the movie with the glasses on
He better pull this movie off, or i am going to be crying for a very very long time.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1BfAr.png[/IMG] :hurr:
As long if he stays in LOTR and not the other novels, he threw a lot of good scenes at TLB.
shut up it's a lotr movie it's part of the cannon [editline]29th November 2010[/editline] mein automerge
Avatar was shit because it was never meant to be rich in story department.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26377166]Avatar was shit because it was never meant to be rich in story department.[/QUOTE] That's my point.
At least it's being [b]filmed[/b] in 3D, you guys are comparing 3D to the shitty converted ones we've had lately. There's a difference you know. Although I'll probably end up watching it in 2D anyways.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/28k_RED_CAMERA.svg/2000px-28k_RED_CAMERA.svg.png[/img] See the purple one? That's what they're going to use to film. Ignore the ginormously larger ones, those will be coming in the following years from your favorite batshit crazy camera company
what do those numbers mean murkrow [editline]29th November 2010[/editline] nevermind I get it
i'm normally doubtful about films being in 3d, but i trust peter jackson to pull this off properly because lets face it: he's a fantastic director and knows what he's doing.
and he lost a whole bunch of weight
I wish I was called Guillermo Del Toro.
I 100% trust Jackson on this decision.
I'll be watching this in 2D. I watch films to become immersed, something I can't do with those annoying glasses on and special effects which remind me I'm watching a film.
[QUOTE=Drasnus;26381233] and special effects which remind me I'm watching a film.[/QUOTE] lmao what
[QUOTE=Drasnus;26381233]and special effects[/QUOTE] :downs:
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;26376971]Uhh actually they used Polarized 3D glasses since the 50's.[/QUOTE] And you really think that stands up at all to the technology today? Good luck getting a projector then to spin a reel of film at 144 frames per second, as well as the time needed to duplicate and repeat the frames. Just because you can make polarized glasses doesn't mean you can make a 3d movie. It hasn't been possible until now. The technology works and you're all winy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.