Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-77980.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: First Four Minutes of Lion King 3D to Show in Front of Cars 2 3D</b></a> <p>Disney has announced audiences will have a chance to see the first four minutes of The Lion King in 3D in theaters in front of Cars 2 3D. The Lion King 3D his theaters for 2 weeks on September 16, 2011 before going to a Diamond Edition release on October 4rd in Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D.</p>
Originally Posted By mawnck Boo too, and that's having seen it. Hate to say "I told you so," but I did. Ya can't do 2D animation in 3D unless it is extensively shaded and detailed. 2D animation is representational. Solid colors with outlines are standing in for actual surfaces ... and there's no way to get 3D cues inside a solid color. Result: lines and body parts wind up floating in space. Throughout the trailer there are stray lines and eyes and nostrils and stripes that jut out into space rather than appearing to be a part of the animal. Man that close-up of Rafiki was a mess! I expected that problem, but I did not expect how terribly exaggerated the 3D was, like you were looking through some kind of distortion lens that made close things seem closer and far things seem further away ... most disturbing when you're seeing, say, a gazelle with a nose three feet away from its eyes. There's no excuse for that. Maybe the 3D conversion software didn't give them enough levels to work with? Finally, I think this sequence proves what folks like Roger Ebert have been saying all along ... 3D is just not necessary. And like colorization, it distracts from the filmmakers' original intent. Arguably the best opening in the history of animation, this sequence moved and stunned audiences with, among other things, its appearance of expansive DEPTH, before 3D was ever even considered. As presented in 3D, it's just a 3D effect fest, with the extreme depth of field (close birds! distant sunrise!) overwhelming the viewer's senses and distracting from the music, lyrics, drawings, colors, and happenings on screen - in short, everything the filmmakers used to make the sequence so effective in the first place. Honestly, it ruins the whole sequence, and I don't use that verb lightly. I don't think people would have been very excited by that 4-minute preview in 1994, if it had been in 3D. In any case, Disney will not be getting a dime of my money for such shenanigans. It would be cool to see the original **unprocessed** movie in a theater again (IE the original movie, not just taking one distorted side of the conversion and declaring it 2D) but I guess they won't be doing that, huh.
Originally Posted By dshyates So, I should be thankful that at the Cars 2 3D showing I saw we didn't get the LK 3D trrailer?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So, I should be thankful that at the Cars 2 3D showing I saw we didn't get the LK 3D trrailer?<< Well, YMMV. I'd been looking forward to seeing what the Disney conversions would look like, so seeing this was a nice surprise*, even though it sucked. I'd be pretty irked if I found out it was supposed to be there and it wasn't. Besides, I don't think the average moviegoer is going to look as critically at the 3D as I do. I just thought it looked terrible. * For anyone who missed it in WE, I've unplugged from most of my online haunts for awhile, so I didn't see this thread until this morning. I was just stopping in today to see if everyone else was as disappointed with Cars 2 as I was (nope), and also to state my piece.
Originally Posted By brotherdave We didn't see it when we saw Cars 2 in 3-D either. I'm sort of dissapointed in not seeing it so I can relate to how bad it would translate into 3-D as I have NO desire to shell money out to see it in 3-D when released. I guess I'll be spared from it then.
Originally Posted By ecdc Wow. Reason 846 to hate 3-D. It's bad enough when I end up at a movie in 3-D, now I can't even go to 2-D movies without being impacted, because theaters are too lazy to properly change lenses or improve the lighting. It's stunning that Disney couldn't even be bothered to go, "So, it looks like this isn't working." Instead, they just figured the math: the 3-D conversion must not be more than what they expect to make off the showings. Who has time to think about quality when you're crunching those kinds of numbers?
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>3D is just not necessary<< So true! It was fun for the first movie or two, now it's just annoying, especially since it seems about every second movie is in 3D.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo We now have a 3D TV including a subscription to the 3D Sky Channel. My conclusion? 3D works best with CGI renderings and is best used in video games (Wipeout HD 3D is amazing). But hand drawn animation looks aweful with the 3D rendering so far. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Lion King.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Was disappointed my 3D screening of Cars 2 did not have the Lion King trailer. But I did love the Brave trailer and Toy Story Toon.
Originally Posted By JeffG Surprisingly, they aren't showing the Lion King trailer at the El Capitan, although they do have posters outside the theater advertising the 3D re-issue. They also have posters up promoting a 2-week run of the "Beauty and the Beast" 3D conversion in September. That may be an exclusive to the El Capitan, but I don't know for sure. -Jeff
Originally Posted By MissCandice Hmmm, my least favorite Disney movie is being re-issued in more expensive 3D? I think I'll pass.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Wow - Lion King is my absolute fav - hate the princess movies though.
