Originally Posted By kennect well looking in to this I came across one interesting thing. James Cameron saying everything would become 3D since that's the world we view or that's how we see it. I thought that was interesting. I do hope Moulin Rouge makes the cut for a conversion.
Originally Posted By kennect OC, Oz is in fact getting an IMAX release here in the states if I am not wrong.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm having all my digital photos converted to view master -- I really want to see Christmas 1968 in 3-D :/
Originally Posted By mawnck Jim doesn't have to like the idea. I don't care much for it either. I remember how crummy The Sorcerer's Apprentice looked when they blew it up to IMAX size for Fantasia 2000 ...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Anything constructive to say?<< Pointing out that approximately 100% of post-3D conversions look pretty bad, not to mention it completely detracts from the filmmakers original intentions, is constructive. Converting classic movies into 3D is just one (tiny) notch above colorizing black and white films in my book. I get that it's not everyone else's book, and if someone wants to go check out the Wizard in 3D, good on ya. I hope you enjoy the show. But yes, I do think having a conversation that includes pointing out why some of us think it sucks is constructive. Heck, it's gotten to the point where the look of an old movie - that gorgeous, celluloid grain - is increasingly factoring into what movies I buy. I recently picked up "Last Train to Munich," hardly a perfect film, but man does it looks spectacular. Criterion FTW. Can 21st century Hollywood gimmicks and increasingly desperate attempts to make a buck at least keep their lazy hands off my old favorites?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I would enjoy seeing the original Wizard of Oz on the big screen sometime. I'm pretty sure I've only seen it on television. I don't need the distraction of 3-D: Just seeing the scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion, the Wicked Witch larger than life would be enough, thanks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am curious: Are the opening and ending B&W Kansas scenes in 2-D or 3-D? It would make more artistic sense if they at least held off the 3-D until the scenes in Oz begin.
Originally Posted By Daannzzz But the tornado might be great in 3D. We are going to see it Friday. Hopefully the "after the fact 3D" is decent.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub i am going to see it....well, have to since I live in Kansas and my California relatives call me Dorothy. Thanks for this discussion. I might have missed it without the reminder.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Converting classic movies into 3D is just one (tiny) notch above colorizing black and white films in my book.<< I don't agree with the "notch above" part. As I'm always going on about, adding a 3D effect to a 2D movie requires closer objects to be digitally enlarged, creating a funhouse mirror effect. Screws up the cinematography. Changes the framing. I don't have much of a problem with movies that were going to have the 3D added in post all along, other than the fact that they don't always do a good job with it. It's the movies for which the filmmakers never intended it, and didn't plan for it, that I think it's inappropriate.
Originally Posted By mawnck PS - I'm not so sure the tornado is going to be great in 3D, it being essentially a wind sock with debris blowing around it. Flying debris is (are?) not easy to 3D-ize. Also, the fact that so many of the backgrounds are just painted backdrops presents a challenge for the 3D guys. What do you do with that? I fear the unreality of the sets and special effects will be the main thing that gets enhanced. I wonder if they decide to throw in some digital "improvements" beyond just a 3D conversion?
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Just to be clear, you all are talking about DISNEY'S version of Wizard of Oz, right?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>mawnck, it's my understanding it got a very detailed restoration.<< So did the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment of Fantasia. Another elderly segment planned for Fantasia 2000, Clair de Lune, was scrapped because they couldn't make it look good enough in IMAX. And a "detailed restoration" doesn't change the fact that the whole movie was shot on a soundstage, using depression-era film stock, lenses and special effects. I'd personally love to see it on the biggest screen possible, restored within an inch of its life. But not tampered with to produce a phony 3D effect. Hey, maybe they changed the order of some of the shots too. Doesn't change the experience, right?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Hey, maybe they changed the order of some of the shots too. Doesn't change the experience, right?> Nicely played, sir. Nicely played.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Okay young whipper snappers ... if any of you bothered to read my posts ... you wouldn't need to be asking questions I basically covered before - Since I saw it here in Australia more than a week ago (ahead of the U.S. release) ... The difference is just SOME added depth. Primarily with the cast in the movie .. against their backgrounds. It's throughout the whole film. Kansas sepia tone scenes .. through all the Technicolor scenes. Anywhere where there are close-ups of the cast, especially Margaret Hamilton ... the 3D effect with her was especially cool. Since it was not filmed in 3D (lol) .... naturally ... there are no "Captain EO" cheap thrills .. like Hooter throwing food at his other crew mates. But what I will say .... without giving too much away is what may have been one added effect (I think!) ... when Glinda performs one bit of magic, to wake up Dorothy, Toto, and the cowardly lion in the poppie field. To recap ..... What you get, is some (not a lot, just -some-) added depth. Much like Martin Scorsese's "Hugo". It's subtle. And go in with the expectation of some of the heads of people (even Toto) a bit cropped ... as my showing had it cropped to something like 1.66:1. I absolutely hate it ... when studios can't get aspect ratio's right. If it's shot in 1.33:1 ... PROJECT the damn thing IN 1.33:1 ... (etc for whatever other aspect ratio other films are in.) I'm having a "Joan Crawford/Helga" moment - IF YOU CAN'T DO RIGHT DON'T DO IT AT ALL! ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc mawnck, can you point me to any good articles or even blog posts discussing the issue of post 3-D conversion? Something that goes into a little bit of detail about the issues you're mentioning, the enlarging of foreground objects, messing with framing, etc?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> If it's shot in 1.33:1 ... PROJECT the damn thing IN 1.33:1 ...<< Yes. And if it's shot in black & white, leave that be. And if it was shot in 2-D, leave it at that as well.
