VoDT in 3-D?

Sven-El

Sven-El

Well-known member
No, it hasn't been announced that this will happen yet. However many in this thread have brought it up so I figured it should be discussed on its own.

For me at least, I hope VODT is not in 3-D. Yes, Pandora in Avatar and Wonderland in the new Alice in Wonderland movie were amazing... but they looked too surreal for me ( which is fine for Wonderland. It should be surrreal. Ever read the book?)

However Narnia, much like Middle-earth, though a fantasy world, is meant to "feel" real, as though you could actually go and visit them. I for one prefer this feel to Narnia over surreal.

What are everyone elses thoughts on a 3-D VoDT?
 
Last edited:
I'm with you, Sven-El. VDT has substance and doesn't need the distraction of being in 3D. For Wonderland, I enjoyed it in 3D, but by a few minutes in, I had forgotten about 3D altogether, and I can't say 3D necessarily enhanced the experience. I hope they don't go for 3D with VDT.
 
I have a practical concern with 3-D... Ever conspired with a friend to take a picture of the giant holding the little guy in the palm of his hand? It's fun to have someone stand near the camera holding out a hand while someone else runs WAAAY back, then you position the camera so it looks like the distant figure is a little guy standing in the other fellow's palm.

In 3-D it's obvious what you're doing, and that makes it a lot less fun. When everything is fake or everything is real, 3-D can be really nifty. It's a lot more of a pain when you're combining fake and real. I sure as shootin' wouldn't want to be doing the compositing if EVERY scene had to have 3-D information for the left and right channels matching up without halo or registration errors AND maintain it when the matted-in portion is moving toward or away from the camera! GAAAAH!

I'll even share something else with you. In some cases black and white is more dramatic than full colour. That's especially true when you see Ansel Adams' photos of Yosemite. The large rocks and cliffs look otherworldly in Black and White. Color, in some cases, is TMI. So it's not ALWAYS good to throw EVERY available technology at a film just becuase it's in your arsenal.
 
Last edited:
I have a headache just by ready ES's first paragraph!!! Can you imagine watching the entire movie? my head will explode!!!
 
The only places I think the 3-D will have any effect is when Eustace, Lucy, and Edmund are pulled into the portrait and when Eustace is a dragon. Otherwise, why bother?
 
EveningStar said:
I have a practical concern with 3-D... Ever conspired with a friend to take a picture of the giant holding the little guy in the palm of his hand? It's fun to have someone stand near the camera holding out a hand while someone else runs WAAAY back, then you position the camera so it looks like the distant figure is a little guy standing in the other fellow's palm.

In 3-D it's obvious what you're doing, and that makes it a lot less fun. When everything is fake or everything is real, 3-D can be really nifty. It's a lot more of a pain when you're combining fake and real. I sure as shootin' wouldn't want to be doing the compositing if EVERY scene had to have 3-D information for the left and right channels matching up without halo or registration errors AND maintain it when the matted-in portion is moving toward or away from the camera! GAAAAH!

I'll even share something else with you. In some cases black and white is more dramatic than full colour. That's especially true when you see Ansel Adams' photos of Yosemite. The large rocks and cliffs look otherworldly in Black and White. Color, in some cases, is TMI. So it's not ALWAYS good to throw EVERY available technology at a film just becuase it's in your arsenal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That was how they achieved the differing hieghts between characters in LOTR. In 3-D it could become obvious that say, the actor Gimli was actually taller then the rest of the cast. The fun of movies is the illusion.
 
Well, I can see that most people don't want it in 3D, and I can see why. They're also considering making "The Hobbit" in 3D, and most people are objecting to that too. I'm not really sure, but I don't think I'd like it much either.

I've only ever seen 1 movie in 3D, but am I right that there's like an option, like you don't have to watch it in 3D if you don't want to, and it will just look normal? Only if you want to use the glasses will it be 3D? :confused:

But I really think the filmmakers should look and see that most of the fans don't really want it in 3D, or the Hobbit.
 
Right. And for a long time there was no desire or even the slightest rumblings of doing either film in 3-D. Peter Jackson was ademently against it for the Hobbit and so was Guillermo Del Toro ( the director). Even Steven Speilberg and George Lucas were staying away from it ( perhaps because of nightmares fof how bad Jaws was in 3-D. Then you could really tell the shark was fake.) Then came Avatar and now every one is, " Oh, we have to do the movie in 3-Deeeeee!", even if it doesn't need it.

Narnia has a great story, and has halready had breathtaking ( all natural New Zealand and Australian) scenery and imagery and a top-notch cast ( Ranging from newcomers like georgie, Skander and Will Poulter to accomplished veterans like Liam Neeson.)

I didn't mind it when they did that for Superman Returns as it was used sparingly, but to do each film in 3-D is overkill.

The only reason I can see doing it in 3-D is because it will help deter movie piracy. If some one records say VODT in 3-D it will be a poor quality film. However studios are doing an even better job of cracking down on that stuff so it's not needed.

Plus any time I watch Narnia or LoTR as they are now, I'm blown away by the buety of New Zealand and the other areas they've used for Narnia as is that I want to see them in person, not projected in 3-D on a screen. Can a 3-D picture of New Zealand really comapre to the real thing? nope. I didn't want to visit James Cameron's Pandora, but the New Zealand Peter Jackson used for Narnia, you can bet I want to see.
 
I don't know what it is, but I actually really can't tell the difference between a 3D film and non at the cinema. Maybe that is another worrying sign for my eyes?:confused: Nothing seems to 'jump out' at me - I don't get it.

So really, I'd rather not have the 3D faff. Don't get the craze anyway. What's wrong with watching a film as it is; and on a big screen it should have a nice, engaging effect as films non-3D always have done!
 
the old 3D with the colourd lense...never worked for me either.....but the new real 3D it isnt so much supposed to jump out of the screen as have an entire wold inside the screen and sink back into it...has depth to it...but truth be told...i dont think 3D would add to VDT a whole lot so im agreed in leave it normal
 
~Aravis~ said:
Well, I can see that most people don't want it in 3D, and I can see why. They're also considering making "The Hobbit" in 3D, and most people are objecting to that too. I'm not really sure, but I don't think I'd like it much either.

I've only ever seen 1 movie in 3D, but am I right that there's like an option, like you don't have to watch it in 3D if you don't want to, and it will just look normal? Only if you want to use the glasses will it be 3D? :confused:

But I really think the filmmakers should look and see that most of the fans don't really want it in 3D, or the Hobbit.
Click to expand...

you are correct....well i know here in Australia, some cinemas dont have the 3D projection stuff....there normaly is 2 versions of the film....3D and not 3D...

the 3D version ( atleast the new "real 3D" ) is a little out of focus and when u put the galsses on wich look like a cheap dodgy pair of sun glasses dose it come into focus and turn 3D....other cinemas just have the 2D others still have Both
 
If a film wasn't made in 3D to begin with, there are no cool effects of things jumping out at you. It just sort of looks more like you're "there" when you watch. It would be an expensive waste of time to convert VDT, and I hope they don't. It's pointless in a good 2D film. Although, in Alice in Wonderland, it was kind of fun. But that's a fantasy world; Narnia is supposed to be a "real world" for the people in it.
 
Yeah, I'm not too crazy about this idea. I've never been too impressed with the whole 3D thing. Unless the technology develops in some amazing way very quickly, none of it looks right to me. Plus, it tends to give me a headache.

Even if they do release DT in 3D, though, it'll be in 2D, as well, so at least there will be the option of seeing it 2D.
 
I honestly can't believe I'm coming back to the site because of this, and I'll have to explain:

I was hoping to catch back up with these forums eventually once school had finished for the year....but what do I see on Facebook last night? Paul's post about the possibility of this. I'm going to vent my frustration right here, right now. *Vents*

Okay, now for words :)D): 3D is quickly appearing, to me, to be the fad movie-viewing technique, and why is that? Money. Why did Avatar make so much money? Ticket sales aside, we know 3D tickets cost more. So, of course, what's going to happen? Everyone decides 3D is the best way to make (say it with me now) MONEY!!

In the short term, I'm not surprised Fox decided to do this. They, like a good business, don't want to face the problem that Disney (apparently) had when they decided to drop Narnia after PC: PC didn't make enough money, plus all the other stuff. So, what appears to be the best way to make good money right now? Transfer the movie to 3D. Now the only problem, I'll admit, with this argument is that it costs money to transfer the movie to 3D, so depending on how much that costs, added to the standard budget, Fox could still be faced with a lot of money to catch up making, should VDT run into the sequel problem (I honestly hope it doesn't though *prays*).

The other problem is, potential 3D burnout. This film will be coming out in December after a small "deluge" of 3D films, which could lead to some people not wanting to see the movie because it will be widely released in 3D (unless theaters show the 2D version on only one screen...yeah, I don't see that happening). Granted, I don't know of any other 3D films this year that come out after Toy Story 3, but the possibility remains.

Now since that is done, how's everybody doing? :D
 
Welcome back, General O -- I have missed you. And I share your frustration! It seems to me just to be a bandwagon deal, and every single movie is coming out in 3D. Why not give VDT a chance to stand on its own rather than hackneying it with a gimmick like 3D? If everyone is tired of 3D by the time it comes out, and they only go to the 2D screening, then they will lose more money because of the expense involved in converting it to 3D. And then they will have caused their own problem of the movie not paying for itself. :(
 
There is no question that 3D is cinema's current hot topic, and there have been some incredible advances in 3D imagining over the past couple of years, so it is certainly possible that 'Voyage' will be considered for this treatment. Some of the most notable examples of 3D films include 'Coraline' 'Bolt' 'Alice in Wonderland' and of course 'Avatar' and I agree, these texts are more fantasy-based, but who are we trying to kid - the Narnia Chronicles are fantasy novels, and their narratives are reliant upon magical, surreal events.

To deny that in a films re imagining would be quite a feat.

In short, I am all for another impressive example of 3D imagining and 'Voyage' could well be it, but considering that two films in the series have already been released without it, I think it's rather unlikely the 3rd installment will. It may even be a dubious decision in terms of budget.
 
Also,

3D is no longer simply a 'gimmick' unless in fact the technique is used in purely 'gimmicky' and predictable ways - I think it has proved to be quite an impressive advancement ultimately, but only in the right hands.

For example, 'Coraline' was a wonderful example, and 3D gave the film so much more depth and vitality - as if watching puppets on a stage, whereas 'My Bloody Valentine' used 3D in such as way as to be contrived - implements of death smashing forth from the screen. Yawn.

It appears none of you have faith in 'Voyage' or it's director.
 
Back
Top