VoDT in 3-D?

dansemacabre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Welcome, dansemacabre, I didn't see you post before! :) I'm a Gaiman fan myself.

I don't think 3D is going to become the standard for movies, at least I hope not, because, well, video and DVD ... And until it does, then it's a gimmick right? I agree it works well in some films, like Alice in WonderLand and as you say Coraline, but those are fantasy world, no? (Coraline, especially.) VDT is supposed to take place in a "real" world ... 3D just feels gimicky too me. But I hope it will be awesome as usually I love 3D. Or I did, before it became so common.

As for faith in the director: he's new to the Narnia series with this film, so we have no body of work upon which to base our faith. Many of us were quite hopeful in the beginning because we wanted a new director after Adamson, and we respect Apted's Amazing Grace, so I think we are tentatively hopeful, especially after hearing many good reports from different groups that have previewed some of the footage.

Just when we were getting hopeful, though, they announce this 3D nonsense, and so it didn't help our attitude ... :(
 
The thing I'm wondering is this: does Michael Apted even want to DO it in 3-D, or is this being forced on him? That'll greatly affect the final product.

Also it's worth noting that James Cameron has slammed this mad rush for 3-D, mainly as a film maker he is concered the studios will ruin other directros films and force them to put out an inferior film. For all the flaws with Avatar as a story, from a purely technical stand point, he did something very revolutionary and it took him years to make it. He didn't rush it.

They shouldn't rush this either. I'm all for it being in 3-D, but I want it to be good quality.
 
That's a good point, too. Can you even convert it well if it wasn't meant for 3D? I understand that happened with Alice in Wonderland, and it still looked good in 3D, but again, that was a totally different feel. It was bizarro world. VDT is supposed to seem real to the Pevensies, not like an "under land."

I did not know Cameron was objecting to all the 3D. Good for him. And I do wonder if Apted is on board or just being forced to get on the bandwagon.
 
inkspot said:
That's a good point, too. Can you even convert it well if it wasn't meant for 3D? I understand that happened with Alice in Wonderland, and it still looked good in 3D, but again, that was a totally different feel. It was bizarro world. VDT is supposed to seem real to the Pevensies, not like an "under land."

I did not know Cameron was objecting to all the 3D. Good for him. And I do wonder if Apted is on board or just being forced to get on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

RIght. Look at Superman Returns . Select scenes ( namely a lot of flying scenes... but saddly not the opening credits) were shot in 3-D but not the whole thing. It amde it much mroe exceiting actually.

YEs. Actually Michael Bay and Chris Nolan ( the current Batman franchise director) are also against it. Lucas and Speilberg have been holding out, at least on upconverting their classics ( really? the shark looked fake in Jaws to begin with.. do we need to see how fake it is?).
 
"Also it's worth noting that James Cameron has slammed this mad rush for 3-D, mainly as a film maker he is concered the studios will ruin other directros films and force them to put out an inferior film."

Sven, that's exactly what will happen if they treat 3D as a gimmick. Filmmakers and studios tend to treat successes with terrible imitations and in this case, with 3D tickets more expensive as it is more expensive to film and show, they have to make a lot more money than normal movies.

Right now, 3D is a fad. Whether it will last or slowly disappear as it did in the 60s and 70s is still unknown. The studios have to find the right balance of enough movies to turn 3D per year to make it worth the money while not doing it so much that the audiences don't get bored with it and avoid the more expensive tickets.

MrBob
 
MrBob said:
Sven, that's exactly what will happen if they treat 3D as a gimmick. Filmmakers and studios tend to treat successes with terrible imitations and in this case, with 3D tickets more expensive as it is more expensive to film and show, they have to make a lot more money than normal movies.

Right now, 3D is a fad. Whether it will last or slowly disappear as it did in the 60s and 70s is still unknown. The studios have to find the right balance of enough movies to turn 3D per year to make it worth the money while not doing it so much that the audiences don't get bored with it and avoid the more expensive tickets.

MrBob
Click to expand...

Right. Look at what happened with the Matrix. It had the revolutionary "bullet-time" technique that created slow mo fight scenes. I'll admit the fight scenes are what give the film it's mind-bending aspect. It actually feels like it's a virtual world because of them. After the first Matrix came out, almost every big film had to use it to the point it became revolutionary not to use it. Right now I'm geting more excited for Iron Man 2 because it sounds like it WON'T be in 3-D. They just want to *gasp* try and tell a good story using characters everyone grew to love from the first film.

Or take the long awaited biopic on Abraham Lincoln that Liam Neeson is supposed to star in. Will that honestly be better in 3-D? No. Hey, hearing Liam Neeson recite the Gettysburg Address is enough reason for me to see the film without a gimick.

I for one was fine with a few big films being selected for an Imax experience or for 3-D. It allowed me to go to a venue free of chattering teenagers, and parents who can't read a rating certification and decide to bring their screaming four year old to a PG rated movie and enjoy them. Now those same people will be at my showing that I went to to avoid them.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with VODT being released in 3D. I think it would be awesome to watch Narnia and have things popping out at you. ;)
 
CaspianGirl said:
I don't have a problem with VODT being released in 3D. I think it would be awesome to watch Narnia and have things popping out at you. ;)
Click to expand...
Because the movie was created 2D, it won't have that "coming at ya" feel that movies originally made in 3D have. 2D movies don't bother having things flying off the screen into the audience, and so you probably won't get that feel.

But Sven El, I totally want to see JAWS in 3D! What a hoot! :)

Of course a hoot is not exactly what we want in VDT.
 
inkspot said:
Because the movie was created 2D, it won't have that "coming at ya" feel that movies originally made in 3D have. 2D movies don't bother having things flying off the screen into the audience, and so you probably won't get that feel.

But Sven El, I totally want to see JAWS in 3D! What a hoot! :)

Of course a hoot is not exactly what we want in VDT.
Click to expand...

All I think of actually is not the actual Jaws in 3-D ( I havent' seen it, I've only seen the original, which is one of the best "horror" films ever, in my opinon), but all I think of is The scene in Back to the Future II where the 6-D! ( yes it may come too now) Jaws pops out of the marque at Marty and he starts screaming, then just as it looks like it will swallow him it vanishes. Then he stands up and says, " Shark still looks fake. "

Which going back to several of my other posts, well do we want that feeling when we leave Narnia? DO we want to say, "You know it looks like they bought Aslan on clearance from FAO Shwartz?" No, I want to be as absorbed in not just the character but the performance and the story as I was before. I want to"believe' for two hours ( or however long the film is,) that Narnia is real. That was a disadvanatge to Avatar. After a while I was reminded that it was "fake" and lost interest in Pandora and the Na'vi and started checking my watch. I don't have that feeling from the other two Narnia films or LOTR.
 
Last edited:
That is funny -- I don't think I saw that "back to the Future" sequel. But so true. Jaws 6D!

Yah, I agree. I think 3D is gimmicky and won't enhance the VDT experience at all. I think it offers people the chance to look on Narnia as another Wonderland dream world rather than a real place the Pevensies actually go to. :(

But I hope not! I really hope the 3D will strike a good chord, because I usually like 3D.
 
I wasn't against the idea of VDT being in 3D and I'm still not. I have actually never seen a 3D film and I'm pretty sure VDT will be my 1st. I know one of the fears is that it won't be good because it wasn't filmed in 3D. I saw this trick on Narniaweb where if you put two pics of the same thing side by side and cross your eyes it looks like they're in 3D. They did that with pics from PC and they looked pretty awesome even though PC wasn't shot in 3D!!!!! Even though my hope for VDT in 3D was never lost I think it's stronger than ever now :)
Here's a link to the thread with pics you're interested in seeing them :)

http://www.narniaweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1005
 
Chisha92 said:
I wasn't against the idea of VDT being in 3D and I'm still not. I have actually never seen a 3D film and I'm pretty sure VDT will be my 1st. I know one of the fears is that it won't be good because it wasn't filmed in 3D. I saw this trick on Narniaweb where if you put two pics of the same thing side by side and cross your eyes it looks like they're in 3D. They did that with pics from PC and they looked pretty awesome even though PC wasn't shot in 3D!!!!! Even though my hope for VDT in 3D was never lost I think it's stronger than ever now :)
Here's a link to the thread with pics you're interested in seeing them :)

http://www.narniaweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1005
Click to expand...

I can't cross my eyes. :( :p
 
inkspot said:
Yah, I agree. I think 3D is gimmicky and won't enhance the VDT experience at all.
Click to expand...
I might have agreed with that more, had I not seen How to Train your Dragon last Saturday. 3-D technology is actually at the point now where, if it's handled right, it actually does provide a major enhancement to the experience of watching a movie. That is, of course, assuming that they handle it right, but I'm hoping that they'll manage it a little better than, say, "Spy Kids 3-D."
 
I have a few thoughts. Firstly, every movie that's been in 3-d has Ben in regular too, so no worries there. Second, I would kind of like 3-d. The reason I want it is because instead of making the people look like they're really large on the screen to simulate being close up, it actually looks like I'm right next to them. Anyone going to see clash of the titans in 3-d should try this out. Just slip your glasses off for a second and you'll see.

I agree that narnia doesn't need the wonderland effect, but I liked the 3-d in avatar, because it made everything seem realistic to me. I hope that if it's done in 3-d, that it turns out more like avatar.
 
Welcome Steve! I didn't see you post before.
Steve said:
I might have agreed with that more, had I not seen How to Train your Dragon last Saturday. 3-D technology is actually at the point now where, if it's handled right, it actually does provide a major enhancement to the experience of watching a movie. That is, of course, assuming that they handle it right, but I'm hoping that they'll manage it a little better than, say, "Spy Kids 3-D."
Click to expand...
Right, I usually love a 3D movie that's been made in 3D because they put cool effects like that in it. That's one reason I love those goofy motion rides or 4D theaters at theme parks. But to take a 2D movie that already has been well received in the portions of it that have been shown to various audiences ... and then convert it to 3D just because everything else is coming out in 3D ... I worry about that.
 
Ah, yeah, I'm new...ish... the account is old, I just haven't hung out too much.
Oh, wait, did they already do the filming, and they're converting it in post production? Man, I need to read these things more carefully.. if that's the case, then that's probably a bad idea. That made the live action sections of Alice look really odd.
 
Yah, it was shot in 2D and is being converted to 3D. That's the reason I object to the 3D, too. If it had been made in the beginning for 3D, like Avatar, that would be different, to my mind. Now it just seems gimmicky and unlikely to add much to the film.
 
However here are somethings to take into consideration for the 3-D conversion. Actually really one thing.

The movie is being released in December. It gives them nine monthes to convert the film. Alice adn Wonderland and the Clash of the Titans remake didn't ahve that kind of time frame to work with. That should help the film.

Also... Aslans' Country at the end of the world... in 3D!
 
Back
Top