Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo

Top 10 Movies That Should Never, Ever Be Converted to 3D


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 of 12 OFFLINE   kemcha

kemcha

    Second Unit



  • 376 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 2009

Posted March 10 2010 - 06:10 AM

I found this list quite interesting. Discovered it on Wired.com:
Source: http://www.wired.com...onverted-to-3d/


Quote:
10. Alien - The chest-burst scene is quite scary and gory enough, without the baby coming out of the screen towards the audience, thank you very much.

9. The Pirates of the Caribbean films - Orlando Bloom is wooden enough in two dimensions. And besides, with the exception of Jack, virtually all of the characters are one-dimensional, so displaying them in three really seems like overkill.

8. The Evil Dead films - Honestly, we’re just afraid someone might injure himself running away for fear of losing an eye to Bruce Campbell’s chin.

7. The Big Lebowski - While the bowling scenes might look pretty cool in 3D, consider the scene where the thug pees on The Dude’s rug. Or the scene where Walter bites off a guy’s ear. Some things we’re better off not seeing in 3D.

6. Die Hard - We’re pretty sure we’re better off not being any closer to the bloodied, sweaty John McClane. We’re afraid that people with overactive imaginations might start to think they can smell him, which is certainly not something to be wished for.

5. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - With all due respect to the late, great James Doohan, nobody wants Scotty’s stomach any closer to them than absolutely necessary. Plus, in 3D, it would probably be pretty obvious that the closeups of the whales were done with models.

4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial - If you or someone you love is the sort who gets emotional at movies, consider how much more powerful the emotions would be if E.T. weren’t just reaching out to Elliott, but to you.

3. The Lord of the Rings trilogy - It would be far too likely that all the careful perspective shots director Peter Jackson used to establish the differences in characters’ size would be lost, or at least badly screwed up, by the 3D conversion process.

2. The Muppet Movie - This is a near-perfect movie, with at most a few sour notes in an otherwise symphonic masterpiece. It works, as does anything involving Muppets, because it was meticulously filmed so that the Muppets were utterly believable as characters. Converting it to 3D would be bound to make the Muppets look more like they do in real life — that is to say, less like living beings.

1. The Star Wars saga - As though he hadn’t tinkered with the Star Wars films enough already, George Lucas has publicly stated his intentions to release 3D versions of them. It wasn’t bad enough that he made Greedo shoot first; now he wants to mess around with the whole look and feel of the movies. If we haven’t made our case yet, we have but three more words for you: 3D Jar Jar.

There are of course plenty more where those came from — feel free to add your own ideas in the comments. Interestingly, while compiling this list, a few films stuck out as ones that might actually be improved by 3D conversion.



#2 of 12 OFFLINE   ManW_TheUncool

ManW_TheUncool

    Producer



  • 5,888 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 18 2001
  • Real Name:ManW

Posted March 10 2010 - 12:09 PM

I like/love most of those, but I gotta say they probably shouldn't be remotely close to the top 10, if you ask me, unless we're simply talking about personal favorites w/ a heavy slant toward those genres.

_Man_

Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things..." (Apostle Paul)


#3 of 12 OFFLINE   kemcha

kemcha

    Second Unit



  • 376 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 2009

Posted March 10 2010 - 12:28 PM

I have to agree about the 7th point. I wouldn't want to see the Big L peeing on me in 3D, there's just something inheritantly wrong about that. 

#4 of 12 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted March 10 2010 - 02:35 PM

Most of John Water's movies would probably not be good in 3-D!

#5 of 12 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 23,730 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted March 10 2010 - 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard [url=/forum/thread/298784/top-10-movies-that-should-never-ever-be-converted-to-3d#post_3669287]

#6 of 12 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer



  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted March 11 2010 - 04:56 AM

Stereoscopic cinematography is not an arbitrary thing.
Movies that are conceived and executed in 3-D should be watched in 3-D.
Depth is part of the visual language and part of the story-telling; it isn't just a gimmick.

Movies that are conceived and executed flat should be watched flat.
Converting a flat movie to 3-D distorts a film, and disrespects the creative intention of the filmmakers.
Converting a flat movie to 3-D is tantamount to colorizing King Kong or Casablanca.

No flat movie should be converted to 3-D.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

 


#7 of 12 OFFLINE   Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer



  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted March 11 2010 - 07:01 AM



Originally Posted by Richard--W 

Stereoscopic cinematography is not an arbitrary thing.
Movies that are conceived and executed in 3-D should be watched in 3-D.
Depth is part of the visual language and part of the story-telling; it isn't just a gimmick.

Movies that are conceived and executed flat should be watched flat.
Converting a flat movie to 3-D distorts a film, and disrespects the creative intention of the filmmakers.
Converting a flat movie to 3-D is tantamount to colorizing King Kong or Casablanca.

No flat movie should be converted to 3-D.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

 
Tell that to James Cameron who will be converting Titanic to 3D this year.

To be honest I don't know that I would shoot a 3D film all that much different than a flat film. I tend to shoot with fairly dynamic angles that emphasize the difference between the foreground and background elements anyway. Look at one of the greatest 3D films of all time, Dial M For Murder. Watching it flat, you would never know that it was a 3D film. The best 3D films are that way. Not poking you in the eye every 5 min. You are right however that seeing them in 3D is a different experience.

Doug



"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#8 of 12 OFFLINE   Hollywoodaholic

Hollywoodaholic

    Edge of Glory?



  • 1,521 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 08 2007
  • Real Name:Wayne
  • LocationSomewhere in Florida

Posted March 11 2010 - 08:13 AM

Porno should not be in 3D. Especially anything with Ron Jeremy. But, alas, I suspect that even though it may not have been reported at CES, the 3D porno video business is undoubtedly in the works because we all know what cashes in the most on the Internet.

#9 of 12 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer



  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted March 11 2010 - 09:50 AM


Originally Posted by Douglas Monce 

To be honest I don't know that I would shoot a 3D film all that much different than a flat film. I tend to shoot with fairly dynamic angles that emphasize the difference between the foreground and background elements anyway. Look at one of the greatest 3D films of all time, Dial M For Murder. Watching it flat, you would never know that it was a 3D film. The best 3D films are that way. Not poking you in the eye every 5 min. You are right however that seeing them in 3D is a different experience.
Doug
The ability of stereoscopic cinematography to place the action or objects in the audience space is a nice bonus that should be applied judiciously. I agree there is more to 3-D than poking people in the eye every five minutes.

Once you start working in depth you'll find it's another tool at your disposal with which to tell a story. Because of the science involved in utilizing depth, you'll find yourself blocking, lighting, and editing differently. It's a not a matter of choice. For example, blurred backgrounds in close-ups simply don't work stereoscopically unless the backgrounds in all the shots are blurred. In flat films these shots don't convert well. Cutting from a focused background to a blurred background jars the eye.  Stereoscopic cinematography is necessarily a deep-focus discipline. That doesn't mean deep-focus films like those directed by Kubrick and Frankenheimer will convert easily, and you can be sure the directors will have staged depth differently than their flat film represents when converted. If you're in the habit of shooting fairly dynamic angles that emphasize the difference between foreground and background elements, you may find that you have to pay more attention to the space in between foreground and background so that the background doesn't crush and the foreground doesn't pop out. Lighting and staging change in stereoscopic films; at least, they should change.

Hitchcock was very discerning. He found a way to shoot Dial M For Murder so that it worked both ways. But his blocking was more shallow than usual. The flat version of Dial M For Murder has always seemed diminished to me, perhaps because I've seen the stereoscopic version about a dozen times (last time in 2006) under optimal conditions.

Converting the flat lensmanship of Titanic to 3-D must be a problematic undertaking. The 3-D documentaries that Cameron shot after that are like a shopping list of stereoscopic mistakes. He obviously learned from them, however, because Avatar is a much more sophisticated use of 3-D. Although Avatar is a fine film in many ways, its stereoscopic cinematography does not compare well to the state-of-the-art 3-D films of 1953 and 1954. George Lucas promised to convert the original Star Wars trilogy to 3-D for its 30th anniversary but failed to deliver, I gather because of conversion problems. Miniatures lack physical mass under two lenses and are exposed as miniatures.  Star Wars is layered with miniatures and other methods that look fine flat but are problematic in 3-D.



#10 of 12 OFFLINE   Eric F

Eric F

    Screenwriter



  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 05 1999

Posted March 11 2010 - 01:08 PM

How long until 2001: 3D  arrives? As if the final scenes didn't encourage doing drugs in 2D...


#11 of 12 OFFLINE   Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter



  • 1,815 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted March 13 2010 - 07:20 AM

I doubt the Kubrick estate would ever allow that to happen.

Vincent


#12 of 12 OFFLINE   Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter



  • 2,177 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted March 13 2010 - 08:14 AM

 I think the conversion of flat movies to 3D holds the same drawbacks that colorization does. Thankfully all the 3D blu-rays will be backwards compatible to 2D.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users