Saturday, April 10, 2010
Pirates Of The Third Dimension...
So "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" starts shooting this summer (late June/early July) in Hawaii...
What hasn't been addressed yet is this whole big 3D thingie that started a stampede with a little film called "Avatar." People have been wondering if POTC 4 will be shot or converted into 3D for next year's tentpole release. For the record, almost every summer/tentpole release from every studio will be in 3D for near future. But the question about Pirates, is will it be filmed that way; 2D or 3D.
The answer is both. Huh, you say? Well, the majority of the Walt Disney Pictures film will be shot in third dimension. Almost all the actor bits and dramatic scenes and all. A good two-thirds of the film will be captured that way. The remaining FX parts of the film will be shot in normal 2D and then converted to 3D. The final result of which will be ALL 3D, of course.
I know you can't wait to see Jack Sparrow square off against the lord of all pirates, the darkest privateer of them all and captain of The Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard.
I can't wait to see his beard all in flames from those fire crackers tied to his hair as he boards the Black Pearl...
Posted by Honor Hunter at 12:00 AM
Labels: 3-D, Film, Johnny Depp, Pirates, POTC, Sequels, Walt Disney Pictures
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
but all the pirate's films have premiered in Disneyland's RoA...how will they do that?
Can't wait until the 3D trend is over.
That's like saying I can't wait until this whole color trend is over.
Whether you like it or not, it's here to stay. I'll just be happy when they have 3D that doesn't require glasses.
I'll be happy when we have holographic projection instead of Viewmaster.
"Whether you like it or not, it's here to stay."
That's what they said in the 50's. 3D comes and goes because, unlike, sound and colour, 3D has yet to really add anything of artistic or dramatic value to film.
You may not like it, but it's here to stay.
Comparing it to the 3D of the 50's isn't a good analogy. they've fixed most of the problems they had back then. Except for Clash of the Titans, most of them have bee vastly superior experiences. The thing I don't like is wearing glasses. And fixing that is close to a decade away. But until then we'll just have to suffer.
I will happily see both versions, but I'm guessing I'll prefer the 2D one, like I did for Alice in Wonderland. I'm not sold on 3D; the colors are too muted/darkened by the glasses. So far every 3D movie I've seen has been better without the extra dimension and paraphernalia.
Pffft... 3D didn't work in the 80's. When people realize that not every film has the budget of Avatar they will grow weary of 3D. It will be huge for the gaming industry but who wants to wear funky glasses watching 3D movies in their living room? I don't. Just give me a good 2D movie with a decent story. That's all I care about.
Cory Gross said:
>>>That's what they said in the 50's. 3D comes and goes because, unlike, sound and colour, 3D has yet to really add anything of artistic or dramatic value to film.<<<
For the record, that's what they said about color, and sound before that. The entire concept of moving pictures was considered a fad from the start. The whole prinicple behind entertainment is to make it as a real as it can get within the limits of technology. Mastering 3D, whether or not it failed in a previous decade, is only the next logical step.
Until we have a fully immersive virtual reality 3D will continue to suffer from primitive shlockiness. We shouldn't have to suffer along with it at the expense of the photographic aesthetic of film medium. A two dimensional painting is still a work of art and substance.
I'm not against 3D as such. I just don't think it adds anything and therefore, unlike sound and colour, will always be a novelty that comes and goes. Maybe there will be the Griffith of 3D, but I'm not holding my breath.
However: "The whole prinicple behind entertainment is to make it as a real as it can get within the limits of technology." This is a demonstrably false statement. The whole principle behind entertainment is to make money by being entertaining. How is practically irrelevant. It can be totally lifelike 3D or it can be 8-bits of Mario, so long as it is successful in what it does.
Yes films are made to make money but it is still a tool and a medium for an artist to create with and use the palette available to them to paint with the colors they choose. Not every film is art, most just money-making rubbish, but a good Director, an artiste, makes it something more, a visceral experience that captivates our imaginations. If the story is well-written, the acting convincing, then it doesn't matter whether the special effects are modern or dated because the audience will have already bought into the illusion of the fantasy. If 3D could be effective as a necessary narrative construct, instead of an appendage to support a weak narrative framework, as in the case of Avatar, used only to showcase a miasma of visual effects, then it could be a fundamental tool intrinsic to the medium rather than a superfluous money-making gimmick currently being exploited by the studios.
I really like the new 3D technologies. I thought Avatar in 3D was awesome and I can't imagine to watch it at home in 2D because it will be boring as hell. The 3D added TONS to this movie and will as well to others.
Also it is a good thing for the movie industry that there is another reason why you have to go to the cinema to experience something you can't at home.
If I want to, I can watch Avatar at home in 3D when it comes out. I'd have to sell a bunch of things to buy the 3D TV, but I can do it if I want...
I'm thinking that 3Ds next big step is the home theatre... not really with the few movies they're putting out right now... but as soon as the gaming industry jumps into it, it'll really take off.
Call me old-fashioned but I'm just fine with watching movies in 2D in high definition. I just bought my HDTV less than 2 years ago so I'm not about to rush out and spend thousands more on a new TV when I'm perfectly content with it. It's like all the tech geeks that rush to buy the latest whiz-bang gadget, like the iPad. Don't need it.
High Definition is here to stay. We can say the same of 3D. If there is choice, people would choose HD and/or 3D based on the options. We've barely transitioned from standard definition to HD. It will take longer for 3D. The other issue is content. Not enough films are available in 3D. Again, I also think 3D's hinderance is resolution. 1080P might prove to be inadequate. There must larger screen sizes to watch 3D movies, which mean a higher resolution is required. 3D on a 50 inch screen is a minimum requirement. Screens must ramp up to 60inches or larger since the viewer is focused at the central image instead of the edges.
I still think Pirates is played out. The last movie was absolutely horrid. 3D won't save a bad movie like Clash of the Titans.
I think you may have this backwards. The FX assets will be 3D because they're built in CG. The live action will be shot in either 2D or 3D, no?
"I think you may have this backwards. The FX assets will be 3D because they're built in CG. The live action will be shot in either 2D or 3D, no?"
The live-action will be shot in 3D with a 3D camera, the special effects will be shot in 2D using the cameras that they would have used for effects, then the footage will be converted into 3D to match the rest of the film.
"I'll just be happy when they have 3D that doesn't require glasses." (PixieArrhh)
That already exists. it's called live theater!! yay!!
and I can't wait for this film. it's gonna be great to captain jack on the big screen again. i love johnny depp. he's so good at playing him :)
Post a Comment