Obviously 3D can be really in-your-face if they want it to be, but I think today's filmmakers are going to be more sophisticated about using 3D in their movies.

Whenever you change a story from book to film you have to deal with changes in the plot to accommodate better visuals. I'm not going to say whether that is right or wrong, because it depends on the movie, but I will say that we've always worried that a director might get too caught up in visual effects and forget about the story. 3D just involves another series of visual effects choices that a director has to make. If the director is already wary of overusing visual effects, then there should be no danger in him or her directing a movie in 3D.

All that to say this: Michael Apted assures us that VDT is a character based film, so I doubt that the decision to make VDT a 3D movie will ruin it. (Unless you don't trust Apted in the first place, in which case I don't know what to tell you.) The visuals seem to be taking second place to the storyline.

As far as SC and the rest of the CoN go, if we can get a director who is more interested in story than visuals, then we'll be OK. If we get a director like Robert Rodriguez, then we're in trouble.

How much money and work goes into making a screen 3-D compatible? We have nine months yet, maybe theatres will see the trend and have lots more screens ready by VotDT.

":1oupq9yd]How much money and work goes into making a screen 3-D compatible? We have nine months yet, maybe theatres will see the trend and have lots more screens ready by VotDT.

that would be smart if they did.....they must be thinking of that! because most movies now are in 3D or are going to be......

Reviews for Clash of the Titans keep coming in, and they all say the same thing: post-conversion 3D looks awful, fake, and gimmicky. Remember again that this is a movie, like VDT, that was written, designed, shot, and produced as a 2D film, but like VDT has been converted to 3D in post-production, not for creative purposes but to theoretically bring in more revenue. If Clash ends up suffering financially because of the 3D, all of these studios rushing to convert their films in 3D in post may wish they didn't jump on the bandwagon so quickly.

Heh, well, maybe I'm being entirely too wishful for VDT's sake but I thought the trailer looked awful, fake, and gimmicky, and that was 2D.
However, I do agree that maybe all these studios will regret rushing to convert their films to 3D as the novelty of it wears off.
Again, my only reason for really wanting VDT in 3D is because I'm afraid it will suffer more at the box office if it isn't in 3D like all of the other movies coming out around it.

Oh, and by the way, for those wondering if there will be enough time to convert the movie properly... I don't know how long it takes to convert a movie to 3D, but post production on LWW lasted about a year or so with a month in there to shoot the adult Pevensie scene at the end of the movie. Remember that included ALL CGI creature creation.
For PC, post production lasted about 8 months.
For VDT, filming wrapped back in Nov. which will give them 13 months total for post production. Two months or so more than LWW. Plus the faun and satyr legs and Reepicheep and Aslan are already designed so they don't have to start those over from scratch (unless they want to which is a possibility). I should think they'll have MORE than enough time to convert to 3D.

I would also like to point out that even though we assume Michael Apted shot VDT intending the movie to be in 2D, we, the little forum peoples, received word that it might be a 3D movie a full two months before shooting started. I can't imagine that Apted had absolutely no clue converting VDT to 3D was a legit possibility and likely had that in the back of his mind the whole time while filming.

Just some thoughts.

The decision to convert Clash of the Titans to 3D came near the end of January, and the film was pushed back from its original release date of March 26 to April 2 to accommodate that change. I would assume that if the movie's visuals were done by the end of January/early February, than the conversion process would take about 2-3 months. That would give the crew of VDT plenty of time to make the conversion with the amount of post-production they have built in.

Maybe the reason the film was given such a long post-production period was because the studio anticipated the possibility of 3D early in pre-production as FK suggested.

Reviews for Clash of the Titans keep coming in, and they all say the same thing: post-conversion 3D looks awful, fake, and gimmicky. Remember again that this is a movie, like VDT, that was written, designed, shot, and produced as a 2D film, but like VDT has been converted to 3D in post-production, not for creative purposes but to theoretically bring in more revenue. If Clash ends up suffering financially because of the 3D, all of these studios rushing to convert their films in 3D in post may wish they didn't jump on the bandwagon so quickly.

ahhhh! I hope that's not going to happen to VotDT!
I am surprised that Walden jumped on the 3D bandwagon.....
I DON"T WANT NARNIA RUINED!

sorry.....venting......

Reviews for Clash of the Titans keep coming in, and they all say the same thing: post-conversion 3D looks awful, fake, and gimmicky.

Whether or not the Clash of the Titans reviews would be enough to say that all post-conversion-3D looks awful as a rule, im not sure.... but yeah, the reviews for Clash of the Titans have been spectacularly scathing of the 3D effects.

Here are some choice quotes from one of the reviews on Aint It Cool News, which i think gives a good summary of how badly the 3D conversion turned out:

"Above all, this stands as THE defining moment we watched 3-D actually destroy a film and stand testament to the terrible, terrible idea of adding it in post-production. It is an effect so bad that it is all most of us can talk about."

"After all, with all that 3-D AVATAR money out there, how could you go wrong?

How about hair that floats mysteriously behind its subject, as if there was someone with near identical hair standing behind them? How about trees that wobble in place as the camera moves and the rendering computer tries to figure out what to do with it, or flat ground that appears convex as it mysteriously slopes up on all sides towards our sitting subjects?"

As I understand it, the main thing one needs to consider while editing in 3-D is that no single shot can be shorter than 2 seconds. Any shorter than that and the brain doesn’t have time to adjust to the new 3-D surroundings and cannot properly process the information, leaving you confused and a little off balance if you cut away too soon.

Think back on the most stunning shots of (Avatar) – they are fluid, but not rapidly edited. Instead they are more classically edited. Now imagine if those action sequences were directed by Paul Greengrass in full on Bourne Supremacy-mode and you begin to get an idea of what watching action sequences in Clash of the Titans is like.

"To add insult to injury, they didn’t even color correct it to account for the sunglass-effect of the polarized lenses, making the experience very much like…watching a movie while wearing sunglasses. BRILLIANT!"

Though as has been said on here before, the 3D conversion on Clash of the Titans was a massive rush job undertaken only weeks before the end of post-production, so there is no reason to assume the effects would be this bad on VDT, given that we still have another 8 months of post production to go.

Admittedly that still would leave some unavoidable problems in the conversion caused by the fact that the shots were never intended for 3D, but it shouldn't be anywhere near this bad. So no need to panic just yet....

A little Dodo bird told me this is the secret NarniaWeb thread for plotting rebellion against the wicked Red Queen. I do love conspiracies, especially ones conspiring in a conspiratorial manner against the conniving, collossal-headed crown-strealing crone of a conquerer self-styling herself the queen of Underland.

Off with HER ginormous head!! Down with the Red Queen! Long live Queen Mirana!

How DARE you speak of my beloved queen that way!!! She would have your head in a moment!

Oh, she'll have my head, shall she? Oh, it's a glorious head, with a particularly wonderful hat, but she'll not be having it any time soon. She won't be having any heads ever again when the Frabjous Day comes.

I went to see "How to Train Your Dragon" today, and I paid the extra bucks (and drove a total 60 miles) to see it in 3-D. This was my second film (Alice was first) that I've seen in 3-D, so I was curious to see what it'd be like. It was beautiful! They even had scenes with ships sailing on water, and I thought, "there is the potential for 3-D to add a lot to VotDT!" But of course this was an animated film, and I'm not sure if it was converted to 3-D after it was made or what, so I may be comparing apples to oranges. But I was impressed all the same.

What a coincidence! I went to see the same movie today and was also impressed by the 3D!

I'm guessing that animated films are made in 3D. There really is no need to convert a film to 3D artificially when the animation studios already have the original computer data available.

I think that helicopter shots of the islands and the Dawn Treader could really benefit from 3D if they do it right. I also think the slave market and other crowd scenes could really benefit from the multiple layer effect. I hope the 3D in VDT is as beautiful as HtTyD!

Reviews for Clash of the Titans keep coming in, and they all say the same thing: post-conversion 3D looks awful, fake, and gimmicky.

Whether or not the Clash of the Titans reviews would be enough to say that all post-conversion-3D looks awful as a rule, im not sure.... but yeah, the reviews for Clash of the Titans have been spectacularly scathing of the 3D effects.

I wonder if after the reviews of Clash of the Titans if some movies studios planned on releasing in 3D will not be. I'm not sure but it sounds like it was a recent decision to release VDT in 3D. They may not be to far in the process to turn back. Of course, they will only need to turn back if they can't convert to 3D without it looking awful or if they think it won't make enough money.

As a further note on Clash Of The Titans - i went to see it today, but only in 2D since all the reviews had warned to stay well away from the 3D version. However, although much has been made of the fact that the film wasn't shot with the intention of it being in 3D - it didn't mean there weren't VFX shots included which were clearly intended for viewing in 3D.

Maybe its just me being overly noticing of such things (my brother said he didn't notice at all) but there were at least 4 or 5 shots which stuck out like a sore thumb as being "cool 3D effects" shots. Some of them, like the opening narrations' pan across the stars (which was clearly designed to be a multi-layered 3D shot of stars coming out into the audience) were easy enough to pass off, as it didnt look that out of place as a 2D shot.

However, some of the other shots were so noticeable as being "cool 3D effect" shots that it was off-putting to watch them in 2D. For instance, near the beginning there is a whole bunch of winged demon things that fly about, and one of them flys right up and out to the centre of the shot, does some weird spinning thing and then dives right down back into the action. Clearly when viewed in 3D it was supposed to look like the demon thing was coming right at you, but in 2D it just looked odd. If it had been a 100% 2D movie there is surely no way they would of included such a pointless piece of animation.

Again later on, there is a bit where someone skims a coin out into a lake, and it then cuts to a CG shot of the coin skimming along the water right towards the camera. All i could think when looking at it was that it was probably supposed to be a 3D gimmick shot - but without the 3D it just looked stupid. Likewise near the end, The Kraken does a big roar, right up close and directly at the camera. Again, i could be wrong, but the way the shot was framed with the Kraken's head filling the whole screen, and the way it was done directly at the camera just looked so odd and out of place that i can't believe they would ever of framed a shot in such a way if they were doing it as a purely 2D shot.

Like i said, most people probably wouldn't even notice the difference, but if there is one thing i hate more than seeing 3D-gimmick shots in 3D, its having to watch 3D-gimmick shots in 2D. Irritates me no end. I can only hope the same doesn't happen with the choice of VFX shots on Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

(BTW - the movie itself wasn't actually all that bad if anyone is interested. It wasn't as good as 300, which is probably the most directly comparable movie, but on the whole it was pretty fun)