Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID10045520.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Disney Announces Four More Disney & Pixar Films Coming to Theaters in 3D in 2012 and 2013</b></a> <p> <p class="MsoNormal">On the heels of the phenomenal success of <i>The Lion King 3D</i> – which will cross the $80 million mark at the domestic box office today – The Walt Disney Studios has announced limited theatrical engagements for four of its classic films for the first time in 3D. The following titles from Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios will be released in 2012 and 2013:<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p> <ul> <li><i>Beauty and the Beast</i> – January 13, 2012</li> <li>Disney<span>•</span>Pixar’s <i>Finding Nemo</i> – September 14, 2012</li> <li>Disney<span>•</span>Pixar’s <i>Monsters, Inc.</i> – January 18, 2013 (<i>Monsters University, </i>a prequel to the original film, arrives in theaters in Disney Digital 3D on June 21, 2013)</li> <li><i>Th</i><i>e Little Mermaid</i> – September 13, 2013</li> </ul> </p> <p> </p>
Originally Posted By tonyanton Will it surprise anyone when Dreamworks announces something similar in a few weeks?
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Did Wall-E come out in 3D? I don't remember if it did or not.<<< I think Pixar started with UP being in 3D.
Originally Posted By Evening Star Ah, okay. Seems it may be a few years till Wall-E is released in 3D then.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I'm not crazy about the whole 3D thing but it is cool to see these coming out to theaters. Though if one film that could work with a 3D conversion I think Aladdin would work out.
Originally Posted By Manfried My pension and stock holdings appreciate this. Though I wish there was more better content, that wasn't so expensive to produce.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I understand that they may have been waiting to test the waters with the Lion King, but it seems kind of strange that they didn't announce any of these at the D23 Expo a couple months ago. Given how little was announced then, it's pretty surprising how many small-to-medium-sized announcements have been making their way out since then.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Hmm. Didn't anyone at Disney hear that Roger Ebert has declared that 3D just doesn't work?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo For him perhaps. But people are still going to 3D films, every large theme park has a 4 or 5D experience of some kind, and 3D tvs sell. We bought one, and Thor on 3D blu ray was very good, and 3D gaming is amazing.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Didn't anyone at Disney hear that Roger Ebert has declared that 3D just doesn't work?<< I don't think he ever claimed that ... only that it's an unnecessary and (for your eyeballs) unnatural gimmick. And that it reduces the quality of the picture. I'll add to that that in the case of hand-drawn, it distorts the animation drawings. Yes, they do have to be altered to create the 3D effect. >>Finding Nemo and Little Mermaid are going to look SO GOOD in 3-D<< Shuh. They're doing exactly what I predicted (other than Aladdin not being on the list). They're going to get the results I predicted too. Which means they'll never make it to Mermaid. And I'll be very surprised if Monsters University is actually released in 3D. Feel free to bookmark this.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>>>Didn't anyone at Disney hear that Roger Ebert has declared that 3D just doesn't work?<< I don't think he ever claimed that ...<< Oh yes he did: "I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will." blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html
Originally Posted By DlandDug Try this: <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.suntimes.com/eber...t_4.html</a>
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle Seeing the more recent movies in 3D doesn't really excite me. I'd most likely see Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, as much to see them on the big screen again as anything else. (Actually, I never saw TLM at the movies. I was 6, and didn't go to see it because a classmate had a Little Mermaid movie party and didn't invite me. I was hurt, and didn't see the movie out of protest. It still haunts me.)
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Oh yes he did<< He said exactly what I said he said: "it's an unnecessary and (for your eyeballs) unnatural gimmick. And that it reduces the quality of the picture." He did not say that it "doesn't work" IE doesn't create a 3D effect. He said that it "doesn't work with our brains" - and then goes on to prove it with a detailed and very clear explanation from an academy award winning film editor.
Originally Posted By danyoung >...and then goes on to prove it with a detailed and very clear explanation from an academy award winning film editor.< I read that article when it came out. And while I respect the film editor and his opinions, I completely disagreed with them. 3D is just like anything else - it can be done right or it can be done wrong. When it's right it's really stunning. When it's wrong it's painful, dark and very distracting. If I have a choice of seeing a movie in 2D or 3D, I'll almost always pick the 3D version.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I completely disagreed with them.<< You disagree with the scientific principles by which a human focuses on things? The focal length problem isn't open to opinion ... it's reality. 3D motion pictures give your brain unnatural, confusing signals. Your eye sees depth from a parallax perspective, but is forced to focus on a flat screen. That's also why 3D gives some people headaches. Those aren't open to opinion either.
