The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

No 3D for Harry Potter

gsdx

gsdx

Festina lente
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
57,249
Reaction score
1,622
Points
113
Location
Peterborough Ontario
I think it's a shame that all the studios are pushing for 3D these days. Not everybody can see the 3D effect for one thing, and many more can't see it because their eyesight may require prescription eyewear.

Personally, I think the studios are doing it more for the extra money they can charge for tickets rather than for viewer enjoyment.

No 3D magic for new Harry Potter movie

Fri Oct 8, 11:05 PM

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The new Harry Potter film will only be released in standard 2D next month, after the US studio making it said it had abandoned efforts to convert the movie into a 3D version in time.
ADVERTISEMENT

Warner Brothers Entertainment had hoped to be able to transform the film into 3D format, which has taken off this year as an ever-growing number of blockbusters are produced using the eye-popping technology.

But "despite everyone's best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality," the studio said in a statement about the latest big-screen installment of J.K. Rowling's saga.

"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," Warner added.
Click to expand...

Full Report: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/101009/entertainment/entertainment_us_film_potter3d_technology
 
gsdx said:
I think it's a shame that all the studios are pushing for 3D these days. Not everybody can see the 3D effect for one thing, and many more can't see it because their eyesight may require prescription eyewear.

Personally, I think the studios are doing it more for the extra money they can charge for tickets rather than for viewer enjoyment.
Click to expand...

Could not agree with you more, gsdx. I was very glad to read this. Very wise decision by Warner Brothers.
 
And it wasn't even filmed with 3D technology. It's adding the 3D afterward, which is relatively low quality. It's similar when comparing movies filmed in color to B&W movies that were colorized.
 
gsdx said:
I think it's a shame that all the studios are pushing for 3D these days. Not everybody can see the 3D effect for one thing, and many more can't see it because their eyesight may require prescription eyewear.

Personally, I think the studios are doing it more for the extra money they can charge for tickets rather than for viewer enjoyment.



Full Report: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/101009/entertainment/entertainment_us_film_potter3d_technology
Click to expand...

I'd heard about this awhile back, and they were very strong in their opinion not to do 3D. I'm so glad to hear that they're sticking with that decision. The films have always been awesome without it, especially on an IMAX screen.

James Cameron said he doesn't like the whole "upconversion to 3-d" fad because it's like going to McDonald's for a hamburger, versus making your own at home. Ingredients are required at home and it takes more time, but if they're done right, they put McDonald's to shame.

New 3-d is on the way (which doesn't require glasses), but the technology cost will keep it out of the average person's hands (sans Nintendo 3DS) for at least five to ten more years.
 
he11ien said:
and they were very strong in their opinion not to do 3D. I'm so glad to hear that they're sticking with that decision.
Click to expand...
In case you did not read the whole story, they are still doing the 3D conversion for part 2 which will be released next year. Part 1 3D was only stopped because they could not finish the conversion by the release date next month.
 
Like CGI overkill, most 3D movies are made solely to feature the 3D technology (things jumping out of the screen at you) with little regard to the entertainment factor of the movies. I haven't seen Avatar in either 2D or 3D, but I've read that many of the effects were for 3D impact rather than entertainment.

When I was a kid, one of my favourite movies was Creature from the Black Lagoon. In the 80s, I had the chance to see in in 3D (with the red and green glasses). Until that time, I hadn't even been aware that it had been filmed in 3D. There were none of the usual '3D effects' which abound in today's 3D movies.
 
CFTL was filmed in 3D? I had no idea!

Thanks for the info, gsdx.

I'm very glad HP didn't let 3D delay it, as I think it's not needed for every movie. I'm not thrilled that it's going to be 3D for the second part.
 
3D is stupid! :rolleyes: I don't want things flying at my face in real life, so why would I want to pay for that in a theater? Invest in a good frickin' story, why don't ya?

(note: that last comment doesn't apply to Harry Potter movies)
 
gsdx said:
Like CGI overkill, most 3D movies are made solely to feature the 3D technology (things jumping out of the screen at you) with little regard to the entertainment factor of the movies. I haven't seen Avatar in either 2D or 3D, but I've read that many of the effects were for 3D impact rather than entertainment.

When I was a kid, one of my favourite movies was Creature from the Black Lagoon. In the 80s, I had the chance to see in in 3D (with the red and green glasses). Until that time, I hadn't even been aware that it had been filmed in 3D. There were none of the usual '3D effects' which abound in today's 3D movies.
Click to expand...
Avatar is one of the exceptions to 3D. It was fully made with 3D technology, and one of the purposes of the movie was to show what 3D could be like if done properly. The movies coming out today do none of that.
 
Spiff said:
In case you did not read the whole story, they are still doing the 3D conversion for part 2 which will be released next year. Part 1 3D was only stopped because they could not finish the conversion by the release date next month.
Click to expand...

Well, that's changed. Originally they weren't going to do 3D at all. Such a shame they're going to "convert" it to 3D. That process is horrible and has yet to produce anything near as good as Avatar.
 
Thank you, God! No 3D Harry Potter, FTW.

Even if they do the second part in 3D, at least we'll all have had the chance to watch the first part without it.
 
I don't see any purpose in making a 2D movie into a 3D movie. Unless it was filmed in 3D it's not going to make it any better. I don't think that Avatar is a good example of a 3D movie since it's not real, it was all created digitally so the 3D could be perfected.
 
simpsonsguy01 said:
I don't see any purpose in making a 2D movie into a 3D movie. Unless it was filmed in 3D it's not going to make it any better. I don't think that Avatar is a good example of a 3D movie since it's not real, it was all created digitally so the 3D could be perfected.
Click to expand...

Avatar is used because it is both digital and real-life. But it was shot with special cameras and even the sets were physically laid out to support 3D. All the digital stuff had to be motion captured as well, with 3D in mind.

The thing that sucks about the up-conversion is that if it wasn't shot with 3D in mind, it will not convert well. Everything will have a darkened, muddy look. The depth perception is darn near zero, and the stuff that flies out of the screen looks like Jaws 3D when the shark crashes into the tank.

And let's not talk about the glasses up-conversion forces viewers to wear. Disease factory!
 
jizzeater said:
3D is stupid! :rolleyes: I don't want things flying at my face in real life, so why would I want to pay for that in a theater? Invest in a good frickin' story, why don't ya?

(note: that last comment doesn't apply to Harry Potter movies)
Click to expand...

Not all 3D is stupid. Resident Evil: Afterlife is a prime example. It was filmed in 3D and the whole movie gives the feel that you aren't looking at a screen but through a window. Granted, they don't cater to the "things flying at your face" so much as creating depth. For example, the scene in the showers with the giant and water shooting into the air and falling as droplets with the action taking place through it all. It was almost like being there and not just seeing pictures.

But this was only one example. And yes, many of the 3D films are based on the "coming straight through the camera at you" style which just makes the movie cheesy.
 
As much as I hate 3D, I will admit that I'm a little disappointed that I won't be able to see harry/radclffe all up in my face. He is one sexy man.
 
TheRedQueen said:
Good. 3-D just makes movies dark/eye straining and too expensive to get into. I saw Resident Evil 4 and paid 13 bucks because the movie was only shown in 3D. And it wasn't even that cool. 3D never is. Hell, even IMAX isn't impressive to me. It's all about making money. Take away people's choice to see a movie in 2D and you force them to see it in 3D, thus raking in more cash.
Click to expand...

RE: Afterlife had a 2D option. But I enjoyed the 3D film myself. It didn't seem dark/eye straining to me.
 
I hate 3D, mainly because I can't see it. But even if I could I think I still wouldn't like it because it's just too tacky. Movie studios nowadays are using 3D just to get more money, and for most movies I think it looks silly (Avatar is really the only movie to come out so far that I would love to see in 3D). And with most movies that have 3D, it's an afterthought. They don't actually film the movie in 3D, they film it normally and then add the effects after.

Anyways, even if movies are filmed in 3D, they have to have a regular version of it for people who can't see or don't want to shell out an extra 10 bucks.
 
Best news this year, movie wise. Post-production 3D (which they're using in HP) is shit. Shoot in 3D or don't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top