andrewducker (
andrewducker) wrote2008-09-01 04:41 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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?
no subject
A lot of (the start of) WALL-E was shot in very wide deep shots, which presumably wouldn't work well with current polaroid lensed 3D.
Also I guess it was designed to look pretty in 2D, and they never thought about making it effective in 3D, so wouldn't handle retrofitting.
I'm glad I saw it in 2D mind you. I was towards the edge of the IMAX for Beowolf 3D and got a metric shed-load of bleed through. I think I was getting about 20% of left eye channel in my right eye and visa versa. Not good.
no subject
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
*ba-dum-tsch*
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject