Enlighten me, oh geekdom

[andrewducker]

As 3D versions of recent movies have shown themselves to be insanely popular - frequently raking in several times more money in the 3D screens than in the normal ones, and CGI movies should be trivial to produce 3D prints of, why wasn't there a 3D version of WALL-E?

Comments

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

3D is only really effective when objects come out of the screen towards you. That's why watching a film like Beowolf in 2D is somewhat consufing as there are various scenes in which people appear to make odd movements wave swords about for no apparent reason. Presumably in 3D, these are poking out of the screen towards the audience.

WALL-E was a very simple animation. I can't think of many moments where there would have been opportunity to make use of the 3D. As it must have taken several years to develop, 3D most likely wasn't even a consideration when the animation started.

As for finances, 3D movies are generating more revenue at the moment as people are willing to pay a premium price to go and see them. A large amount of that is surely down to novelty value. How long will that last I wonder if an ever increasing percentage of films are released in 3D. Also 3D films are not available to buy on DVD, so people are forced to see them in the cinema if they want the 3D experience.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

I would love to see a 3d film where they hadn't put in "ooh! LOOK we are in 3d" scenes.

[andrewducker]

3D is only really effective when objects come out of the screen towards you.

Actually, I found those bits annoying - it was actually more effective when it was just the normal movie looking more real.