WHV Announcement: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (Blu-ray Combo) (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

I saw this film in IMAX 3-D.


I've never been a fan of 3-D. I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 4 in 3-D and hated it (both the 3-D and the film). I saw the re-tooled Toy Story films in 3-D and didn't think much of that 3-D effort either.


Add into the mix I have never seen an IMAX film in my life.


Well, my son and I were both blown away by the visual presentation of this film. My son (21 years old) has never really been that vocal about the finer points of film making but after I mentioned how great I thought this film looked, he specifically reeled off a list of a number of scenes he had noticed as looking especially fantastic. The depth and detail of the image was astounding. In particular, an opening shot of Snape standing on a Hogwarts ledge against the night sky was amazing! The light pallor of his face practically leaped off the dark background. And the sound mix was intense at the theater. I am actually excited about my next chance to see an IMAX 3-D feature again.


I will only be purchasing the 2-D blu of this film...but hope that it comes close to giving me that same experience I had in the theater.

 

[Johnny Angell]

And I generally enjoy those movies in spite of the commercial considerations, not because of them. 3D conversions differ from many other moviemaking business decisions in that the conversion of an existing 2D film to 3D does not alter it intrinsically. The version of the film unaffected by the business decision--the original 2D version--remains. As I said before, I'm sure the 3D version of Harry Potter looks great, and that the 3D effect is convincing. There are plenty of black-and-white films that have been successfully and convincingly converted to color, too, but I'm not interested in watching any of them, either. I'd prefer to simply stick with the film as originally made by the director.

I too do not like colorization of films and while I do not agree that converting a film to 3D is comparable to colorization, I can understand that someone else would. I understand your position better. I'm not on the same page with you, but I get your point.

 

[cafink]

I too do not like colorization of films and while I do not agree that converting a film to 3D is comparable to colorization, I can understand that someone else would.

I'm curious to know how the two differ, from your point of view. I suppose many of the recent 3D conversions are different than most colorizations in that they're generally done before the movie is even released, sometimes with the participation of the filmmakers, and released simultaneously with the 2D version. But what about, say, Disney's 3D conversions of The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King ? All were done years after the fact, and without the involvement of the director (as far as I know--someone please correct me if I'm mistaken on this point). To me, going back to a classic film and adding a 3D effect is no different from going back and adding color to a black-and-white movie. What difference do you see that makes one acceptable, but not the other?

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by cafink



I'm curious to know how the two differ, from your point of view. I suppose many of the recent 3D conversions are different than most colorizations in that they're generally done before the movie is even released, sometimes with the participation of the filmmakers, and released simultaneously with the 2D version. But what about, say, Disney's 3D conversions of The Nightmare Before Christmas, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King ? All were done years after the fact, and without the involvement of the director (as far as I know--someone please correct me if I'm mistaken on this point).

To me, going back to a classic film and adding a 3D effect is no different from going back and adding color to a black-and-white movie. What difference do you see that makes one acceptable, but not the other?

Tim Burton was involved with NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS 3D conversion, but you are correct on the other two films. In 2005, I was invited to make the trip to LA to meet with Disney and the ReelD 3D guys concerning CHICKEN LITTLE. They had a presentation in one of the mid size Chinese Theaters and showed many clips from the forth coming CHICKEN LITTLE and clips from NIGHTMARE with Tim Burton introducing. But what amazed me was that ReelD ran their own clip reel that started out with Polar Express, that had already had an IMAX 3D release and then they ran a clip from a 1952 film that they had converted. That clip was the Gene Kelly number Singing In The Rain. It looked amazing and the rain drops and water splashing looked to be coming off the screen. That was the first and only converted 2D film that looked any good that I have seen.

To me 3D in a movie has to have as much thought about the process as the story and the cast. It should be a very important aspect of the film. Besides Avatar, which the 3D was incredible, the only other 3D film to have thought put into it and was filmed using the 3D process was STEP-UP 3D. Bay from the beginning was not comfortable with 3D for Transformers and I think that shows in the film. I shake with horror at the thought of TITANIC, STAR WARS, and TOP GUN being re-released in converted 3D. But I am sure people will flock to the films, at least there is story, acting and action, that movies today lack.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I don't want 3D on home video in any way shape or form. As long as a 2D Blu-Ray continues to be available for every release, I do not begrudge anybody else their Blu-Ray 3D.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

On sale today for one day only 63% off....

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Ron, that only includes the first 7 films, not the 8th which is included in the Complete Collection.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Ron, that only includes the first 7 films, not the 8th which is included in the Complete Collection.

Okay, I hope I didn't allude to the fact that it did.

 

[Ricardo C]

I've already bought the first seven releases individually, so no box set can tempt me unless there's a Star Wars/LOTR level of extras.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

 

 

 

 

Okay, I hope I didn't allude to the fact that it did.

 

 

No, just that it appeared in a thread advertising the complete collection. At first, I thought this was the complete set, but then I noticed the different cover and the price that was $40 more expensive.

 

[Ryan-G]

I've already bought the first seven releases individually, so no box set can tempt me unless there's a Star Wars/LOTR level of extras.

I feel the same, except the only thing that would get me to rebuy is Extended Editions. That's why I bought the first two ultimate editions even though I already owned the regular BR's, the lack of extended editions is why I skipped the next 4 ultimates. From what I've read, at least for some of the films, there's a significant amount of material that was filmed and not included. I'm expecting it'll be released next christmas, IMO that's why they stopped doing extended editions with the Ultimate, so they'd have bait for the Christmas after. I very strongly suspect that's why there's a blurb about a "Moratorium" on the side of the image above. In order to have as much momentum as possible with an extended edition box-set release.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The Blu-Ray 3D releases of Deathly Hallows Parts 1 & 2 will be Best Buy exclusives.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Ordered. Although online, it shows Part 2 as a DVD and not a Blu-ray 3D. The cover art shows a Blu-ray. We'll see what I end up getting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk