Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=74984" target="_blank"><b>Latest: Video: Beauty and the Beast 3D Teaser Trailer</b></a> <p>Walt Disney Studios New Zealand has posted the teaser trailer for Beauty and the Beast 3D on YouTube.</p> <p style="text-align: center;"> <object height="305" width="450" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cxPa9L1B3I&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5cxPa9L1B3I&hl=en_US&fs=1" /> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> </object> </p> <p> </p>
Originally Posted By mawnck It's real. Click through to YouTube and you eventually wind up here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/WaltDisneyStudiosNZ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/user/Wa...tudiosNZ</a> Besides, the animation looks like it's been digitally screwed around with. Even in 2D, the distances front-to-back look artificially exaggerated. I'm still on an "I'll believe it when I see it" basis for hand drawn looking good in 3D. It's been attempted numerous times (by Disney and others), and it never really works, since a surface painted in solid colors doesn't have sufficient depth clues. The ballroom scene will probably work because all the spinning around will fill in the stuff your brain needs to perceive 3D, and Be Our Guest is busy enough that it should be pretty effective regardless, but there's a lot more movie where those came from.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I'm not sure how I feel about that. I had been looking forward to it, but it looks like they've completely changed the animation. There's just something about the motion of the walking into the ballroom that just doesn't have the same life to it that's in the original. I understand that they needed to add in shading and stuff, but it completely takes away from the appeal of 2D animation. It also looks like the colors are way too bright, like they were chosen from the stereotypical kid's furniture colors. I had been planning on trying to see this, but after seeing that, I might not. I guess it's good that they're just doing BATB to test the feasability of the concept, since I don't think many of these will be successful.
Originally Posted By basil fan I'm not real keen on 3-D being added to a film. Doubt I'll pay money to see this. Great Mouse Detective Glitches <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/basil/gmdglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>
Originally Posted By JeffG >> " It also looks like the colors are way too bright, like they were chosen from the stereotypical kid's furniture colors." << Don't forget that 3D glasses dull the colors in a movie. The brightened colors in the video clip were likely necessary to have them look normal in the 3D presentation. -Jeff
Originally Posted By FerretAfros That's what people always say, but I honestly can't say that I've ever noticed a difference. Films like Up, and even the nice new (digital?) clean projections of MuppetVision at DCA look outstandingly bright and colorful. Yet, when you look at the screen without the glasses on, it doesn't really look any different. It's not that it looks like somebody turned up the brightness too much, but rather the intensity of the color. With such plain blocks of color, it just comes off as too much, IMO.
Originally Posted By mawnck The long wait gets longer .... >>'Beauty and the Beast 3D' pushed back indefinitely...but it's all part of a bigger plan Don’t read too much into Disney’s bumping “Beauty and the Beast 3D” from its 2011 theatrical lineup. The Burbank studio remains keen on re-releasing extra-dimensional versions of its animated classics. But the delay with “Beauty” -- to 2012 or later -- is simply the Burbank studio’s acknowledgment that it needs to give consumers more time to buy into the home-3D transition.<< <a href="http://heatvision.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/beauty-and-the-beast-3d-pushed-back-indefinitely-.html" target="_blank">http://heatvision.hollywoodrep...ly-.html</a> By the way ... >>3D at the Box Office: Down, Down, Down No matter how it's spun, the data on the expected 3D explosion just isn't going in the right direction. After nearly 80 percent of those who saw "Avatar" saw it in 3D, it was assumed that the format would quickly overtake theatrical distribution. But 3D's box-office trajectory has been pointing downward almost ever since, with moviegoers apparently growing disinterested in paying high ticket prices for uneven quality. Only 45 percent of opening box-office revenue for Universal's hit animated family film "Despicable Me," for example, came from 3D distribution. And the most recent 3D release, Warner's converted "Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore," grossed only about $6.9 million in 3D revenue for its opening weekend -- the worst performance in the format's modern era.<< <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/3d-box-office-down-down-down-19845" target="_blank">http://www.thewrap.com/movies/...wn-19845</a>
Originally Posted By DAR Avatar was shot right off the bat in 3D that I don't have an issue with. It's this coverting 2D movies into 3D that's the real problem.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Converting old titles to 3D is like converting old titles to IMAX all over again... Remember when they released B&B and Aladdin in IMAX? No? That's because they converted those but cancelled their releases also.
Originally Posted By JeffG Actually, the B&TB reissue in IMAX did come out as did Lion King. Aladdin was canceled after the first two only did mediocre business. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA >>3D at the Box Office: Down, Down, Down No matter how it's spun, the data on the expected 3D explosion just isn't going in the right direction> Hey, didn't I predict this trend about a month ago? And wasn't I shot down faster than someone who dares criticize any Disney attraction on these boards? Just sayin'
Originally Posted By JeffG I really doubt that 3D itself is going away, particularly since they finally have a technology that actually works. I do think that the extra charge for it will probably be phased out, much the same as surcharges for Dolby Stereo or digital projection eventually went away once those technologies became more commonplace. -Jeff
Originally Posted By mawnck >>they finally have a technology that actually works.<< The technology hasn't changed since the 1920s except for the method of projection (film vs. digital). Don't believe everything you read.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- please note the date and time -- I will NEVER buy a 3-D televisionf or my home. There I said it.
Originally Posted By milojthatch Could the box office and especially 3D films be down, oh, I don't know, maybe becuase the economy sucks right now and it costs WAY too much to buy a movie ticket anymore? Just a thought, wonder if the Hollywood brass have thought of it...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I will NEVER buy a 3-D television for my home.<< You will if you need a TV and have no choice. Making the TV "3D ready" really isn't that big a deal if I'm understanding things correctly. It's the stupid headsets that are the issue. But file me under "thinks it's a passing fad" too. Like Frosty the Snowman it'll be back again some day, but at the moment it's melting in the hothouse and Professor Hinkle has its hat.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA >>I will NEVER buy a 3-D television for my home.<< You will if you need a TV and have no choice. > Well, I don't have a Blu-Ray player -- I dodged that bullet. <--I had a whole box full of VHS movies -- now I have a whole box full of DVD movies -- NEVER AGAIN!!!
