When movies switch between story written spacifically for 2d and 3d, which is inevitable, there will be a natural decrease in dvd sales. Imagine: Not everyone is like Cameron, so 3d movies will naturally pull in the same cash as 2d, but then no one buys the movies for their homes.

I actually can't wait on Hollywood going bankrupt.

Making the Hobbit 3-D is like taking a giant dump on Tolkien's grave. It completely takes away from what the book was trying to create.

Nothing can detract from the original works; they are untouchable.

Eh, I'll just wait until it comes out on disc and then watch it in normal 2-D with my proper home entertainment system. You suckers can go to the theater all you want. The big screen experience isn't what it used to be. Cameron knew that. Hell, a lot of people knew that. But this 3-D thing will come and go and you'll still have to market to traditional 2-D audiences. I don't require headgear in order to be taken to another world and I certainly wouldn't think of paying an outrageous price to see a movie once, let alone twice.

Twice, let alone once even. Long day.

As long as it is not done in post I think a 3-d middle earth would be awesome. It would definitely kick Pandora's a**.

I've been watching Digital prints for years now and absolutely cannot stand watching a 35mm or 70mm print. That being said, the conversion from film to digital is more universal, whereas the conversion from 2D to 3D, in my opinion, requires the film to actually be SHOT for 3D. Take the best 3D films for example (appearance wise). Pixar's Up and Fox's Avatar both shot for 3D. Clash of the Titans and even Alice in Wonderland....both of them NOT shot for 3D. It isn't a gimmick if used correctly. I'm sure Cameron is shaking is head in disgust after seeing how people are using 3D to make their film more enticing and using Cameron's work to compare. As far as 3D is concerned, being in the industry I know after speaking with 3D techs that DEPTH is where the future is, not height or how far an object is coming at you. The trick of 3D is to leave the viewers focus on objects parallel to the screen, while pushing the backdrop depth further. Just compare Avatar to Journey to the Center of the Earth. The issue that 3D runs into is that the objects can't extent passed the edge of the screen, and if/when it does, the mind is trying to figure out where that object went, often times resulting in headaches. Also, studies have proven that people are susceptible to headaches while watching 3D because their retinas are not exactly aligned so the picture is never quite clear and your eyes are constantly adjusting to the 2 separate frames playing together. More viewers who wear glasses or have impaired vision will have that issue.
On that note, 3D is no gimmick. Compare the 3D IMAX, 3D, and 2D ATTENDANCE of Avatar and you will see that 3D IMAX and 3D far surpass the 2D in not just gross, but Attendance as well. If you think 3D is a gimmick, than you probably think Imax is a gimmick....and if you think that...you also probably think that Digital conversion is a gimmick and movie theatres are a gimmick. There are a lot of tools this industry has to entice you, and at least one of them will work. If it isn't digital sound, it's digital picture. If that doesn't do it, let's do IMAX. If that doesn't do it, we'll do 3D or even IMAX 3D. If that doesn't get you in the door, we don't care about you because you aren't a potential customer. 2009 was our biggest year...and attendance was UP. Something was done right.

I have no love for 3D to begin with, but it's obvious all these movies are using it just as a money grab. The sad part is that it will work. I just hope the spread can be contained, and we don't end up with movies that can only be seen in 3D. That would be a tragedy.

Pssst, most movies are "money grabs".

A lot will ride on how good post 3D looks. Like Alice in Wonderland, Clash/Titans and Ridley's Gladihood if he does post 3D. I'm anxious to see how it looks compared to Avatar and other movies that are using the Pace Fusion 3D cameras.

I'd rather have a movie shot in 3D rather then convert it. Movies like Titanic and T2 you have no choice, but I guess a test run on Titanic looked excellent in 3D.

I love the 3D. You just have to do it right. If they can increase the frame rate of the cameras and projectors then it'll even look better and smoother. Less jittery.

Now Transformers 3D by Bay IS NOT a good idea. It's like dropping a bomb in a scrap yard. You won't be able to make out anything. But amazingly Bay accomplishes that feat in 2D.

3D is not a gimmick. 3D TVs are coming out this year. 3D broadcasting is already happening. It's here to stay and only will get better.

3D TV and 3D broadcasts are a niche market. 3D was the saving grace for Theaters, to get people back in the seats with something you CAN'T get at home. As soon as it becomes common place and able to be done at home, Theaters and Movie production companies will stop pushing it because it no longer gets people into the seats and paying top prices. Ergo.. Gimmick and won't last. There are a handful of companies that are already trying to find other ways to get people into theaters because 3D IS being adapted to the home market. If anything is going to become obsolete and outdated sometime soon, it's going out to public theaters. Instead of fighting this, the movie production companies should find a way to capitalize on the home markets and be "first in line" for the new frontier instead of trying to breath life into a dying entertainment venue.

The Thought of filming The Hobbit in 3D sounds to me just like jumping on the band wagon of Avatar. Beside the time when The Hobbit comes out the fad for 3D might have come and gone. Sounds just like hype to me

Of course its going to jump on the bandwagon of the most successful film ever, duh.

If people are so opposed to 3D, then go see it in, you know, 2D.

I loved the 3D in Avatar, and I hope 3D is here to stay. That being said, there certainly are some type of content where 3D is a bad choice. In particular, rapid scene cuts can cause havoc on the 3D effects. Something cut like the Bourne films probably wouldn't work well in 3D at all.

Something with longer, more scenic shots like I assume a del Toro picture based on The Hobbit would have I would think would work really well.

With a production like this, it is normal to think about 3D possibilities. This being said, I hope they realize they don't need 3D to hype things up. And if they do want to make it a 3D feature, listen to James Cameron and shoot it actually in 3D. Don't decide in post-production, let's make it also 3D.

These guys are close with Cameron, and Jackson was there at the theatre owners expo back in 2004 (or whenever it was) urging the owners to implement 3D projection and they refused. If there's anyone outside of Cameron we can trust to do 3D correctly and understand the technology, it's PJ and GDT. Hell yeah I wanna wander through Middle Earth and the Shire in 3D. BRING IT ON.

I'm fed up hearing about 3D.

I think that if the 3-D movies trend continues and makes mainstream there would be a moment in wich some directors are going to film in 2-.D for artistic reasons in the same way there are some directors that film in black and white ,and people are going to watch those movies as they did with Schindler´s List.

Can I fall somewhere in the middle here? I'm not really excited about the aspect of this being in 3D but I don't think that it would ruin the movie and I can't blame WB for seeing the $ signs floating around after Avatar.

I saw Avatar 3 times (that being said I agree with most of the complaints about it) and the first time was in a regular 2D viewing and I can honestly say I liked it just as much as in later 3D and Imax 3D showings. So as long as we have the ability to watch these movies in a 2D format and the way they're shot doesn't make it impossible to enjoy in that format (I trust Del Toro), I'm okay with them trying to make that extra cash. Who knows, maybe it'll even beat Avatar's box office if it's in 3D.

I would see it in 3D, ONLY if it's SHOT in 3D.

Amen.

What's with all the 3-D hate? Yeah, it sucks if it's used as a gimmick(i.e. pointy objects flying at your face)but provides an immersive sense of depth when used appropriately, as it was in Avatar.

when bay conforms to 3D he's a leech that goes where the money is, when Del Torro does....lol

I think it's the studio's call.

Please no, I'm fucking sick of 3D. It adds absolutely nothing to the storyline, it doesn't help to develop characters and it barely immerses you in the 'world of the film'.
I hope that these 'talks' don't go any further. I think it's quite obvious GDT isn't interested, please don't force him WB!

It's not supposed to do anything to the storyline... It's 3D, it's VISUAL! Better VFX haven't helped a storyline, surround sound hasn't helped a storyline, 3D is no different.

I guess it's good that WB will probably try and force GDT to shoot in 3D then?

So you should be complaining about the filmmakers making films with no story. You yourself are saying the lack of story is the problem. So why blame the 3D?

Please no, I'm fucking sick of COLOR. It adds absolutely nothing to the storyline, it doesn't help to develop characters and it barely immerses you in the 'world of the film'.
I hope that these 'talks' don't go any further. I think it's quite obvious GDT isn't interested, please don't force him WB!

I really hate the inflated ticket price for watching a movie in COLOR. Also, the stupid glasses you have to wear, or the fact that if you turn your head it becomes all blurry. And it sucks that for a lot of people the color causes headaches and eye strain.

You know, I've heard this argument so many times. Just to get a few things straight, color DOES add to the emotional value of the film. In fact, there's a lot that you can do with the play of color across the frame that can bring out emotional responses or even give us insight into what the character is feeling.
3D on the other hand, does not do this. There's plenty to be said about the placement of a subject within the frame in 2D space, but there is literally no psychological response to the "close or far" placement of a subject within a 3D frame. In fact, 3D tends to even destroy the 2D placement's effectiveness when they are used together.
So where things like color and sound can ADD to the story or emotion, 3D literally doesn't do anything, except actually draw the audience outside of the film's frame and back into reality.

"but there is literally no psychological response"

And you know this because of which credentials?

When stereo vision is an essential evolutionary advantage (just like colour, which advised us on what to eat and not eat) by telling us where the predator is in the foliage (for example), how can you imagine that it does not impact human psychology - fight or flight response is one of the most powerful emotional responses.

Would you say that surround sound adds to the emotional experience of a movie? If yes, then how can the same principal in the image - the primary aspect of cinema - not also add to the experience?

What do you base your opinion on? Because in my opinion your opinion is completely baseless.

I don't mean to shit on your argument but do you actually have evidence to back up your claim that there is no psychological response to the "close to far" placement in a frame? I ask this because there is no logical reason that I can think of why composition on one axis would have great effect while composition on the other would have none at all.
I will conceed that the edges of the frame are one of the important elements in composition on the width and height axis, and that the depth axis is theoretically only limited by the eye itself, but where the frame ends is certainly not the only element in composition and that is the only real significant difference I can think of.
Also, I can't really see how composition on the depth axis in terms of 3D could have no psychological effect when elements like depth of field and focal length, both of which manipulate how we perceive the depth of an image, have massive effects on our psychological response to the film.
I would say that 3D would definately change the way one would normally compose the frame in the 2D space but, unless it is a problem with the quality of the 3D itself (which is a very important consideration but a different argument entirely), I would say that it would actually enhance 2D composition in certain instances, and worsen it in others. It should be different, not better or worse.

Okay, accepted, you changed my mind.
When I'm thinking about it, I wasn't that astonished about watching Avatar in 3D. It does not hurt my eyes, but it was distracting me.
I'll give Alice a try...

Also, is is just me or does GDT sound thoroughly underwhelmed at the prospect of having to shoot these films for 3D?

It's possible, but I think you're projecting your own feelings towards 3D onto GdT. It's impossible to gauge his true feelings from those comments. He seems calm and professional fulfilling his promise to the fans.

No, it's not just you.

By the time The Hobbit part I hits theatres, I have a feeling (and a fervent hope) that this 3D trend will have passed. This could end up doing the film more harm that good. The studios really seem to have convinced themselves that 3D is the best defence against piracy - the real reason for the resurgence of this gimmick.
Happily, audiences are notoriously fickle and vote with their wallets. The sooner 3D goes back solely to theme park attractions, where it belongs, the better.

Do you think that surround sound - or even stereo sound - is a gimmick in the cinema?

It's just a tool like any other cinema tech; you can vary the amount of stereo from 0 to as much as you like - it's a matter of artistic taste like anything else.

I was blown right out of my mind when I watched Avatar at IMAX from the back of the cinema. I would pay $40 to have that experience again for the first time.

3-D is awesome and it's here to stay.

3D is a gimmick as long as I am required to wear equipment on my face and position myself upright and parallel to the screen.

Cinema is a gimmick as long as I need a screen to look at when I could just imagine it all from reading the script (or the novel).

That "awesome" 3D is also a great distraction to dumb characters and plot.
YAY

You could say that about any film that promotes style over substance. It's not the 3D that's the problem, its the writing.
My concern is that if filmmakers are being pushed into 3D against their wishes (and GdT is clearly resistant) then it will actually hamper the films. I think that the choice to shoot in 3D should come from a passion for trying to push the visual art of cinema, not a decision handed down by studio execs. I would much, much rather see each frame beautifully composed in 2D by a great cinematographer like Navarro under the direction of GdT, than watch something in 3D which was overseen by someone who neither properly knows nor cares about the technology.

Such a great distraction from the dull characters and plot of The Hobbit. Not every plot is like Avatars. Thats like not eating beef because the last chicken meal you had sucked, both meat yet completely different.

I can say without scorn now (hopefully) that the hobbit would rule in 3-D with next gen weta magic!

aaargh when will 3D go away, it's annoying

Agreed. Problem is, during a time when theatre attendance is down and people are downloading films, film companies need ways to get people to go back to the theatres. Add in an over-inflated ticket price and you've got a recipe for guaranteed 3D movies.

Peter Jackson will be playing the part of Frodo. you heard it here first.

look at him, he's perfect. they won't even need to use CGI or forced perspectives, just have Guillermo play all the other Hobbits. DONE. and Ron Perlman will be Smaug obviously.

I don't want Perlman anywhere near this. Hopefully Smaug is voiced by somebody like Ian McShane.