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

[broin.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

You don't need to re-storyboard it though - you can simply re-render from the two fractionally different angles, which will be effectively the same angle as the original, when summed together.

Sure, there's a cost in using the render-farm to do that, but as Pixar are already doing it for all movies from now on - and re-releasing Toy Story 1 and 2 by doing this, it seems odd not to have done it for WALL-E.

[broin.livejournal.com]

I suppose, yeah. The angles aren't *so* different. True. Thanks.

[andrewducker]

I'm assuming there is _a_ reason though - it might be that the angles are different enough that certain effects will look screwy (the sandstorm, for instance).

Damn the lack of Pixar employees on my friends list!

[broin.livejournal.com]

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.

[andrewducker]

It certainly was.

As I said above (and probably ought to write a post about) - the "Look! Stuff coming right atcha!" actually puts me off watching 3D movies - whereas the added realism of a little bit of depth added to the movie.

But I'm probably odd.