Will ‘Dawn Treader’ Be in 3D or Not?
A year ago, Fox announced that they would be releasing three movies in 3D in 2010. Speculation immediately started on our site whether or not The Voyage of the Dawn Treader would be one of the three.
Deadline.com has just released an article that talks about how all of the Hollywood studios are converting all of their movies to 3D due to the large success of 3D movies. (Alice in Wonderland being the latest unexpected box office hit.) The article makes it clear that The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is a clear contender for being released in 3D, but 20th Century Fox still hasn’t decided whether or not to do it.
Hard conversion conversations are being had now at studios on films that include Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Gulliverβs Travels and The Hobbit. Executives are weighing competitive issues and the potential benefits of higher ticket prices against the $100,000 per running time minute that is being used as a rule-of-thumb conversion cost.
Even though not everybody is a fan of 3D movies, the good news here is that VDT was shot prior to a decision being made on whether or not this movie will be in 3D. So we definitely won’t be getting a movie that is all special effects and no story. Releasing this movie in 3D would just be a cherry on top of the ice cream for some and hopefully a whole lot more box office money, which in turn would mean more Narnia movies!
You can read the full article here. *language warning*
I understand that 3D movies (done right) have to be shot in 3D, and that VDT was not shot that way
I would love to see it in 3D, as long as that's not the main idea of the film. Sail on VDT!
i wouldnt like seeing it in 3D because first i really dont like 3D movies plus i think the movie would i dont know…. flow better without it but whatever they think is good enough hahaha sail on VDT
I think they should go for it and to 3D. I would love it in that format!
Like fantasia_kitty said, if VDT wasn't planned as a 3D movie it won't be gimmicky. And I'm all for VDT making money. π
If they can do a good job converting it, I would love it. At first I didn't want it done in 3D at all. Avatar taught me my lesson.
I didn't like the idea of VDT being /shot/ for 3D, because I was afraid the whole "How can we make this scene cool for 3D?" would take over the movie. but, as far as converting it into 3D later… I don't know. I'd certainly love it if it will bring in more money for VDT. So long as it doesn't look stupid.
I'd personally love to see it in 3D! However, (as williams said), I don't think it was shot in that format. I don't know if that automatically rules it out, but it would be a bit of a stretch, wouldn't it?
Ya, I have the same concerns as you….
We'll see how Clash of the Titans does. It is the first movie that is coming out post-Avatar that was not originally made to be 3-D.
I really don't want it to be in 3D. I feel that it would put the emphasis on action and the more subtle themes and the characters wouldn't stand out like they should. Then again, it would bring more viewers..
I don't know.. part of me wants to say that it would be marvelous in 3D (like it'd make you REALLY feel like you're in Narnia!), and it might help ticket sales, which would be just as marvelous, but the other part of me is thinking about how that might sort of take away from the whole approach on "really bringing the Magic back to Narnia". Somehow, making a movie 3D gives off an almost futuristic vibe. I don't know if that's just me, though.. well, we'll just have to wait and see! (:
Unless the article I read some time ago was incorrect,
Alice in Wonderland was converted to 3D in post-production. Which is the case with Clash of the Titans, and Narnia if they decide to convert it.
I think you're right. Clash of the Titans is the first one that wasn't originally planned to be in 3-D, but because of Avatar's success, changed their minds and converted it in post.
Personally I don't really care. I mean it may be cool to have it be 3D but like fantasia_kitty said we already know it's plot will be awesome and it won't just be a bunch of special effects.
Yeah I definitely agree. Yeah it makes me wonder about all the different aspects of 3D films and weather you can make a film 3D with out shooting it specifically for 3D.
I would love to see it in 3D! But I've only seen one movie in 3D, and I liked it, but the glasses kept falling off! It was SO annoying! But I guess it was worth it. But right now, I don't really care if it's in 3D or not, I just care about if it's a great movie like LWW. I'm growing more and omre inpatient!!! π
To me, it's all about the director's intent. This is a case where when Apted was shooting the movie, he was not planning on it being in 3D. He couldn't have been, because they are still trying to decide if it will be released in 3D.
Therefore, it doesn't matter how good the conversion is. The 3D movie will not be the movie that Apted had in mind. The 2D version will be "the film," and the 3D version will be a gimmicky version of "the film."
Whatever their decision, my first viewing of VDT will be in 2D. Maybe a later viewing will be the gimmicky 3D version.
I think they sould makeο»Ώ just Aslan's Country in 3D
Aslan's Country has to be just as big of a leap from Narina as England was to Narnia. Everything has to be more real alive and more vibrant like in the end of LB
——————————
I dont mind it being in 3D, except that it would be such a wasted opportunity to make Aslan's Country something special Instead of just like Narnia
I would LOVE it to be in 3D as long as it isn't shot to give the 3D audience a thrill, like a sword coming straight at the screen….cheesy!!!!!!
Based on the article's statements, if my estimates are correct, a 3D conversion will increase the budget by another $15 milion dollars, meaning that VDT would have to gross another $30 million to break even at the box office. Will the additional profit be worth the expense?
3D? I am not so sure about 3D. It might ruin the whole experience for me in 3D. If it is 3D then I might wait for the dvd to come out.
I saw a movie in 3D when I was really little and it scarred me half to death π But I think it would be really cool to have VDT in 3D.
Why??
I'm pretty sure that you can, but it would make it alot more expensive.
I think it will be Awesome whether it'll be in 3D or not. I think that I'd rather it NOT be in 3D, though.
dude that would make it even more EPIC! Im so excited!
I agree with glumPuddle; what did Apted have in mind? Fox was considering 3D before VDT was shot. What did Apted do with the shoot? If 3D is just going to be a gimmick then Fox should leave its checkbook in its pocket. I have seen very few films that used 3D to add to the story. 3D is now mostly a gimmick. This will change as directors learn to use it. VDT is such a good story. I do not want 3D added to it unless the effect adds to the story. This gets back to: What did Apted intend? If 3D adds too much to the cost, 3D could kill the series. 3D could be good for HHB and LB if 3D adds to the story.
before they sent me that if you are in digital 3D theaters across the world of narnia lapelicula but now I think you are not going to be the 3D Narnia film because he was not interested or whether or not so good but are sometimes things are not 3D and birds bye, and another thing if they will be in digital 3D ?? Narnia all that quick to decide that everyone will see it and for the most rifrunten with 3D digital lenses and bye.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! PLEASE NO!!!!!! 3D IS COOL, BUT NOT FOR NARNIA!!!!!!
No, i won't see it in 3D. Enough of the 3D already.
Ok, I was totally against VDT being in 3D, in fact I was really mad at all the movie studios for forcing directors to convert their movies into 3D! But you know, really it's more of a bonus, just because it's being released also in 3D doesnβt mean I can't see it in 2D and then in 3D, plus more money means SC getting green lit (God Willing) and that makes it more then worth it! For my first viewing I'll be seeing it in 2D but I'll definitely be seeing it in 3D the second time!
Just to quickly pick up on that quote by Roger there – " i do not want 3D added to it unless the effect adds to the story".
Although i can really see the argument for such a point-of-view (the main reason Avatar revolutionised 3D film-making was that the 3D was an integral part of the experience, and not just a tacked-on extra) i would still find myself having to go with the complete opposite point-of-view. I would only want 3D if DIDN'T add to the story – if it had zero effect on the content of the film.
Had they shot the film with 3D in mind and incorporated it in such a way that it was a fundamental component of the whole cinematic experience in the same way Avatar was, then i would of been beyond annoyed. As soon as the film leaves the cinema, the 3D is gone. And unless you happen to get very rich in the next few years and can afford a 3D TV, it won't ever be coming back. So that would be that – an integral part of the movie would be lost to you forever. That would be awful.
So yes, adding 3D in post-production is perhaps entirely superficial and irrelevant to the movie as a whole – but i really wouldn't want it to be the other way round and have a massive part of the movie experience lost to me forever after only a 10 week run in cinemas.
And yes, adding 3D in post-production is perhaps contrary to the directors vision, but again, i would be more worried if it were the other way round and the 3D was part of the directors vision in the first place – there are very few directors in this world that would i trust to use 3D sensibly right now.
glumpuddle: "The 2D version will be "the film," and the 3D version will be a gimmicky version of "the film.""
– But surely that is the best way to have it though? You would always want the 2D version to be the definitive version of the film, since that is the version you are undoubtedly going to end up viewing the most times for the rest of your life when it comes out on DVD.
Avatar was all well and good, but can anyone seriously say they would buy it on DVD? Without the 3D, its just an average sci-fi story, with ok visuals.
why are my posts not showing?
not necessarily. if the movie is to be released on IMAX, then they *have* to use IMAX cameras *during* filming. but for 3D technique to be applied it doesnt matter if the movie was filmed with a regular camera or shot in IMAX– they can be converted regardless.
ComingSoon.net just confirmed with their sources that VDT in 3D is a reality:http://tinyurl.com/ygmazz6
i'm doing the funky chicken dance :D, i may not have been lucky enough to see the ship for real, but heck this is as close as i'm gonna get!
I've Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D, and both blew me away at how well it is done. But…for one thing, it gives me headaches, even though I know I'll get used to it, BUT with VDT being about a ship and sailing on the ocean, mightn't people get seasick?! I'm not going to freak out if VDT is in 3D, but I'm sure not going to jump for joy.
don't do the voyage of the dawn treader in 3-D PLEASE!!!
i agree the narnia movies shouldn't be in 3D
I'm glad I finally found someone who agrees that I can simply just reply to. I don't really want it in 3D (I think only 3D "rides" and such are the only things that should be 3D). If that's the way it comes out… well, it's Narnia so I'll tolerate it. But if it's in theaters in 3D, will it be like that for the DVD? Because if that's the case, I'm /really/ hoping they don't convert it to be as such!
Haha. Never thought of seasickness! lol
Do you mean 3D?
actually seasickness has nothing to do with the ships or the sea, it has everything to do with the one's sense of balance getting upset. you can get seasick on a waterbed, or more similarly motionsickness in a vehicle or a badly handled video, like what happened with the first Blaire Witch movie.
Icarus, 3D is meant to enhance viewing experience, it has and never will make up for depth of storytelling, thats like saying special effects and CGI will make up for bad plot. true some movies try to get away with just that *cough*Transformers*cough*, but once the novelty of 3D will settle down, a movie's success will rely on writing and execution, just as it always had been for the past many decades.
in that regard great stories should not be held aloft as "too precious" for newer storytelling techniques like 3D, that is the first step to killing a mythology– being so archaic and out of touch with newer audiences that interest for it has died altogether.
i read somewhere that in Korea they're trying to spearhead 4D technology–incorporating other sensory perceptions like smell and touch. that would totally rock if you're watching VDT and get slightly sprayed with seawater and smell the sea breeze or freshly trodden grass. π
glum, i'm pretty sure Apted has been given a headsup during pre and main production that VDT could be converted into 3D once the studio gives the go signal. deciding which films goes 3D isnt something a studio decides over coffee break, a lot of forward planning goes into things like this, heck just deciding whether the studio would engage in any 3D projects has a lot of forward planning in itself. the news we hear now that VDT is going 3D is a product of many months of planning and careful execution. when Apted was shooting VDT, i'm pretty sure that he was advised to make allowances and adjustments for the possibility that his movie could screened with a 3D format.
What I am trying to say is that the last two Harry Potter movies we have seen had a few minutes of 3D added that were a waste of time and money. I do not want that to happen to VDT. It should be all or nothing and add to the experience. 3D does not make a bad story good but can make a good story not as good because there is something taking your eyes off the story. Fox was looking at 3D before VDT was shot. Where did Apted go with it? We can only wait.
I agree completely!
Are you serious?? That would be SOOOOO AWESOME!!! This movie is going to rock however they do it, and even though I don't think it'll be in 4D, thats still an awesome idea
I dont like 3D. I guess I am just old fashioned.
I agree!!
perhaps it was a blessing in disguise they began shooting before the 3D thing became a big hit. if they really want to make it 3D for the big hits, then they can just make VDT one of those movies that come as both, either 2D or 3D, like when Avatar came out. that way they can satisfy all the fans, both those who do not want 3D and who do. the more satisfied fans, the more money and success for them! and what movie makers dont like that? π
they are now
that WOULD be cool! π
i dont no that much about 3D. JUST GIVE ME VDT!!!
Well…if this 3D stuff helps VDT do well, then I'm all for it. But I usually don't like watching 3D movies, as the plastic glasses are *really* uncomfortable. Besides, I wear prescription glasses and it's hard to see the screen well without them.
Anyhoo, keep the story of Aslan alive!!
well, as I'm typing this a little late, we already know that it will be in 3D. I have mixed feelings about this. on one hand, it could be awesome. on the other, it could be horrible. ugh! oh well! I will have to see! but I will definitly see it in 2D first!
As long as we still get to see it in the theaters in 2D, and the expence doesn't take away from the quality of the animation of Aslan and Reepicheep I'm all for it. Just don't use this as an excuse to make two of my favorite characters look cheesy, please. I've only saw one 3D movie ever so I'm not an expert, so please make sure the cost is worth it, Fox and Walden, you seem to be doing a good job so far.
I wasn't a big fan of 3D when they first started talking about it, but 3D has improved since them. It might be nice!
does any one no what the song is on the last half of the 'Prince Caspian trailer'?