andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2008-09-01 04:41 pm

Enlighten me, oh geekdom

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?

[identity profile] red-phil.livejournal.com 2008-09-01 08:17 pm (UTC)(link)
In theory for a computer genarated film you just need to re render with 2 virtual camera's instead of 1.

Then 3D cinemas will show a 3d view of the film.

[identity profile] broin.livejournal.com 2008-09-01 08:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Aye, but there's more to the movie than the camera angles. I'd have thought that simply storyboarding and 'shooting' the entire movie from othr angles would cost (in Wall-E's case) millions. And there's a chance you'd get it wrong.

[identity profile] broin.livejournal.com 2008-09-01 08:49 pm (UTC)(link)
I suppose, yeah. The angles aren't *so* different. True. Thanks.

[identity profile] broin.livejournal.com 2008-09-01 08:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Then I'd have to go with '3D movies aren't about watching a movie in 3D, they're about snot and swords and monsters jumping at you'. It's a new medium, in a sense. I've not seen a 3D movie where it did anything for the *story*. And god knows, Wall-E's story was pretty fucking marvellous.