3D Episode II and III "postponed"

[Buzz Bumble]

Disney has "postponed" the 3D-erised version of Episode II and III. Supposedly this is to allow more time for working on Episode VII, but the real reason is likely to be due to the unsurprisingly lacklustre performance at the box office of the 3D-erised Episode I.

I would bother holding your breath for the other two Prequel movies to turn up as 3D versions, let alone the original Trilogy. 3D movies are at best a gimmick, and 3D-erising movies shot in 2D simply doesn't work.

 

[Borsk]

3D movies are at best a gimmick

Somewhat agree.

and 3D-erising movies shot in 2D simply doesn't work.

Definitely agree.

I didn't feel like seeing Episode I in 3D enhanced the experience at all. If they wanted their 3D project to be successful, they would have had better luck starting with one of the better movies.

It will be interesting to see how well the 3D looks in the Star Trek film coming out in May. That would seem to be a decent barometer for 3D in Episode VII.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I read somewhere that JJ Abrams doesn't like shooting in 3D (raises my estimation of him, slightly ), so his so-called "Star Trek" movies are shot in 2D and are "converted" to 3D just like the Episode I was ... so visually it will be the equally hopeless 2.5D carboard cut-outs stuck on a background. Thankfully I had no intention or wish to watch it anyway, but it may not bode well for his Star Wars movie.

 

[darthskellington]

As I've voiced before, I'm not a fan of 3D in general. Usually makes me seasick anyway, so no great loss here. I skipped Episode I...combination of disinterest and bad timing. I had planned on seeing 2 and 3 though. Oh well.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I saw most of Episode I in 3D, but didn't bother staying for the whole thing. It didn't make me seasick (which all 3D graphic computer games do), but it just looked horrible - it looked like bad Viewmaster reels with basically cardboard cut-outs stick over a blurry background. I wasn't going to waste money watching the other movies in 3D, but would have bought 2D tickets instead.

 

[Borsk]

I did not fight for the 3D. It was something that the studio wanted to do, and I didn’t want to do it. And then, when I saw the first movie converted in sections, I thought that it actually looked really cool. So, I was okay with their doing it, as long as I could shoot the movie the way I wanted to, in anamorphic film, and then let them convert it. So, those who want to see it in 3D, which looked pretty cool, can do it, and those that want to see it in 2D can do that too.

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/ne...ed-to-make-star-trek-into-darkness-in-3d.html

I have trouble with 3D sometimes. I can't see it right; I get a headache; it annoys me; I hate the glasses; I hate the fact that things get so dim," he explained

We'll see, I guess. He seemed to have a fairly firm anti-3D stance. It will be disappointing if his opinion was swayed purely by money. Clearly, the studios are pushing 3D for monetary reasons. It's good that he was able to shoot it how he wanted ... so, there's that.

As was pointed out in comments from that article, Christopher Nolan is a director who refuses to do 3D (and he's had a very successful track record so far).

 

[Borsk]

I saw most of Episode I in 3D, but didn't bother staying for the whole thing.

You should have done this in reverse ... skip the first 2/3 of the movie and just watch the ending.