[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by kevin

May 17th 2013...............that's only a weekend after the date I was expecting them to announce it's release. I think that's a good time for it. Allows a nice long post-period after shooting.

I'd need to look it up but at one point I think he said something like that. I do remember Paramount asked him to make the 2009 film in 3D and he said something like 'he didn't feel ready' to try 3D at that time.

I'm surmising he's either changed his mind or the studio has done some deciding for him on that score. But I'd imagine it was a consensual decision because Paramount hasn't hardballed him so far regarding the sequel's development.

I'm easy-osey on 3D - I haven't been to a film in the format since early 2010. But as long as it isn't one of those crappy post conversion jobs but filmed from the outset with 3D cameras I can see the potential for it being used in the sequel.

See, I'm still fuzzy on that part. Were the Harry Potters filmed in 3-D, or post-produced that way?

I avoided seeing Deathly Hallows pt 2 in IMAX, because I could not find any non-3D IMAX screenings of the movie. I'm sure it must have been playing in IMAX without 3D somewhere, but apparently I wasn't cool enough to be able to find where. Every theater I could find that had an IMAX screen for Harry Potter, was handing out 3D glasses with the tickets.

For that matter, HP films 5 and 6 had 3D segments in them. Were they converted in post? The films that I 'knew' to have post-conversion 3D, I likewise avoided. So when everyone talks about how 'awful' they look, I still don't know if it's something I've already seen, or have yet to see.

Maybe if I knew for certain that HP7.5 was shot in 3D, I could have just gone ahead and seen it in IMAX. But it seemed I just wasn't able to find that out from anyone who could tell the difference, and I still don't know.

I know with Avatar, I had to see it in 2D -after already seeing it twice with family in 3D- before I felt reassured that what I had seen was actually a live action feature film and not some 3D/CG animation like Beowulf or The Polar Express. I'm not even sure where to draw the line, if it's known that your actors still had to be digitally composited into artificial CG sets. And while Avatar certainly looked impressive in 3D, I couldn't point to where it 'definitely' looked any better than Superman Returns, or Harry Potter movies 5 and 6.

Which brings me now to The Hobbit. I am VERY much intrigued by this 48fps format Peter Jackson is filming it in. Some have described the doubled frame rate as being almost like looking through a window when you see it projected. It seems like maybe that's the 'real' 3D, and without the need to trick out a person's senses through glasses that make everything appear cartoony or watery. But will I be able to see it at 48fps without 3D? Will any theaters in Las Vegas be kind enough to decide: "Cool! We have the system to project this movie at 48fps. Hey, I know, let's NOT get a 3D print for this." How will you be able to compare 48fps to 24fps, despite how 'immersive' everyone else says it looks... if you can only compare it to another 3D movie?

Will you be able to find Star Trek [Sequel Untitled] in your area if you want IMAX, but not 3D?

Longer than intended. But what else is new. The May 17 weekend sounds good to me, in any case.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

How about.......this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLtJY9g5gno

That made my day. Also the TOS title font was a nice touch.

[Quark]

I'm very disappointed with the upcoming Star Trek film being shot in 3D...Ugh.

[horatio]

I am script guy so I couldn't care less about technical details. But 3D is of course an indication that they care, once again, more about the icing than the cake. About the cake, with Orci writing it it will be another brainless action movie. No wonder they release their stuff in summer when peoples' brains are cooking.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I don't like 3-D. I don't like wearing the glasses, they mute the colors.

[horatio]

I have only once seen a movie with 3D and found it OK. In my opinion its main problem is its attempt to transcend the format of movies. What Sam described, an increase of the frame frequency, accepts the limitation of movies and works within this framework to enhance the impression of realism.

[Quark]

All 3D movies do is just make a ticket more expensive unnecessarily.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

See, I'm still fuzzy on that part. Were the Harry Potters filmed in 3-D, or post-produced that way?

I believe it HP7.2 was post-converted. They would have made Harry Potter 7.1 in 3D but cancelled those plans at the last minute.

For that matter, HP films 5 and 6 had 3D segments in them. Were they converted in post? The films that I 'knew' to have post-conversion 3D, I likewise avoided. So when everyone talks about how 'awful' they look, I still don't know if it's something I've already seen, or have yet to see.

Now, that's news - because I was under the impression that no Harry Potter film prior to 7.2 had been converted to 3D. I don't even know if they had sequences filmed for Imax.

I know with Avatar, I had to see it in 2D -after already seeing it twice with family in 3D- before I felt reassured that what I had seen was actually a live action feature film and not some 3D/CG animation like Beowulf or The Polar Express. I'm not even sure where to draw the line, if it's known that your actors still had to be digitally composited into artificial CG sets. And while Avatar certainly looked impressive in 3D, I couldn't point to where it 'definitely' looked any better than Superman Returns, or Harry Potter movies 5 and 6.

I never got a chance to see Avatar in 2D, I meant to for the comparison from 3D but never found the time.

That's why 3D isn't an object of hatred or love for me. It's just............there. It's an option. Post Avatar there was a lot of rush to post-covert as it seemed at that time to be a good way to drive up box office revenue but then there are times where it gets a good write up as well. I think now that a bit of time has passed people can tell when a 3D film has had the proper effort put in and when it hasn't.

They will go to a 3D film, but only when they judge it worth it. Although 3D seems to be FAR more popular in international market terms than it is in the US.

I know that from a few boards over the years people have been talking about wanting the sequel in 3D as much as some haven't (in the same way some want to see Khan again and some don't) so it's a bit of a crapshoot. Some folks will be excited about it and some will be put off.

Personally, I would never be put off by a film being in 3D itself, I'd be put off by whether I thought the film looked any good or not, so 3D is not essential for me as a viewer.

Which brings me now to The Hobbit. I am VERY much intrigued by this 48fps format Peter Jackson is filming it in. Some have described the doubled frame rate as being almost like looking through a window when you see it projected. It seems like maybe that's the 'real' 3D, and without the need to trick out a person's senses through glasses that make everything appear cartoony or watery. But will I be able to see it at 48fps without 3D? Will any theaters in Las Vegas be kind enough to decide: "Cool! We have the system to project this movie at 48fps. Hey, I know, let's NOT get a 3D print for this." How will you be able to compare 48fps to 24fps, despite how 'immersive' everyone else says it looks... if you can only compare it to another 3D movie?

That seems like the next development..............3D but without having to wear the glasses to experience it. I don't know if The Hobbit will pull it off or not, but I guess come December 2012 we'll see!

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Quark

I'm very disappointed with the upcoming Star Trek film being shot in 3D...Ugh.

the only movie i enjoyed was avatar in imax 3d

[omegaman]

Its being shot in both 3D and 2D.