Last week, reports indicated that Christopher Nolan was working on a stereoscopic conversion of Inception to release it on 3D Blu-ray (see Blu-ray.com, February 25). However, Wally Pfister ASC, the film's Oscar-winning director of photography, now has clarified that, while a 3D release is "definitely" going to happen, he's not taking part in that endeavor, and neither is Nolan. "In terms of what's happening with Inception, you know, Chris and I are like-minded in that way," he said.
Backstage at the Academy Awards, Pfister said he wasn't a fan of 3D, and that "in terms of the immersion for the audience, we like to do things like film things in IMAX and put it on a much larger canvas and higher resolution rather than three-dimensional."
Late last year, Christopher Nolan revealed that his upcoming movie, The Dark Knight Rises, which begins filming in April, will be shot and exhibited in 2D.
WB are the smartest yet the dumbest studio ever. They come out with quality movies but always screw around with it. I wouldn't be surprised if they make more Batman movies in the quality of Forever and Robin after Nolan leaves the project.
Man, I would be all for it if Nolan was actually at the Helm. I don't know how I'd feel about someone else modifying my hard work!, I might feel offended..I find my lack of faith, disturbing...:O
Christopher Nolan and Pfister are heroes in my book. Until a filmmaker actually incorporates 3D into the art of mise en scene in a meaningful way I have no interest in 3D.
Like I said when the story was mentioned last time WB owns Inception they most likely said to Nolan we are going to convert it to 3D with or without you.
Agree with Farid - IMAX is the way to go, 3D is just for low intelligent people with short attention spans. Can't wait till this fad dies like it did back in the late 80's.
Man, so many 3D haters. Why can't you just shut your traps and let a good technology exist? It's not hurting you. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
As far as being immersed, 3D done right can be immersive. Just because Nolan and Pfister are to scared to learn something new doesn't mean they should publicly hate on it. I couldn't care less about IMAX as I am not going to pay the high ticket prices and most are going to see the 1:2.35 version anyway.
If they really wanted to "immerse" their audience, you know, IMAX, does have 3D cameras. Get the best of both worlds. I'm disappointed that TDKR won't be shot in native 3D. No matter what you people say, 3D is here to stay this time.
I agree with, Pfister. 3D has never been my favorite mode of viewing anyway as I can never figure out what it is actually adding to the film that wasn't there before. Avatar, while very imaginative looking lacked an original story. Cameron seemed more interested in pushing the boundaries of the technology than he did writing an involving script. That's not to say that the movie wasn't very engaging, it just felt ( imho ) like the 3D was a distraction from the unoriginal script.
That said Avatar was filmed IN 3D and it is obvious watching the 2D version that it is missing, while watching a 2D movie in 3D is a painful reminder of the fact that the cinematographer had no intention of shooting the movie in 3D and that we're being smacked with a surcharge for the opportunity to see what they movie MIGHT have been like had the film been made with 3D in mind.
Was pretty excited about Inception being converted to 3D when Nolan was supposed to be involved. Not anymore. As for 3D in general, we are now past the Alice in Wonderland stage where people will go see anything just because in 3D. The number of recent 3D flops shows you need to have a movie in the first place, 3D might add some money to coffers then. I think Alice in Wonderland was the one movie that happened to be released at the right time (coming off the revolution that was Avatar). 3D was a novelty back then, and people were more going to see an attraction than a movie at the movie theatre.
no ak... just on the side of my apartment building in the summer....
oh, and to ckenISELL... Nolan & Pfister are scared, you're right... scared to death.... of not completing a circle the started with TDK... you know: film parts of a movie IN IMAX... then shooting an entire film in IMAX... THEN when your t.v. collapses, shoot in 3D....
Christopher Nolan Directed the film. He wrote the film. His production company (Syncopy) made the film.
Right, Nolan has nothing to do with this.
I suspect he authorized a 3D conversion; Although he may not have been involved in the actual process. The fans flipped, and now he is back pedaling putting the blame on Warners.
Christopher Nolan is a successful, award winning director. No body is going to just take one of his films and do anything without his approval.
Studios need to learn their lesson on this - for most directors and cinematographers 3D is a pain in the arse. They do not want to use it and audiences are now also finding it tedious and losing interest. I strongly suspect 3D is NOT here to stay.
ibeetle, there have been plenty of discussions with Nolan's hatred for 3D prior to the Inception discussion in 3D. This has Warner written all over it as they own the rights to the film.
I can't wait for 3D to die, and it will. There are too many competing formats of it for the home (and the fact that you have to have specific glasses for said brand of TV, expensive glasses at that especially for families...if they wanted it to work, they should have gone the RealD route for all, with the same glasses the theaters use, and be done with it). This all causes consumer confusion, compatibility frustration and in the end, it will go away. It falls in line with Beta, Laserdisc, DIVX and HD-DVD. The studios and now set manufacturers are practically forcing it on us and it's nowhere near being ready for prime-time.
I don't know. I saw the documentary "Hubble" with some friends last month at our city's science museum. Awesome movie but it was an Omni-theater where the screen is practically the wall and the ceiling. It was 2D and a bit overwhelming. I still thought my father would enjoy it and planned to take him but then I saw on Facebook that the IMAX at the Zoo was bringing it back for a return engagement in 3D. We could do a double feature with "Under the Sea" for like $20 bucks so we went there. The 3D was astounding. Now despite what you may Google, there is a moment in the credits where they list the 2D to 3D conversion team, so at least some of it wasn't filmed in 3D.
I'm not a fan per se of films going back and turned into 3D in a rush job, but when they take their time, like with the first two Toy Stories (those were amazing!) it can be good. I think Casablanca is a stretch, but Inception, while not BENEFITING from 3D, could be an interesting journey. I would only see it in 3D in theaters though, not 3DTV which I hate. Tron and Avatar in 3D- Good. Megamind and Green Hornet- 2D is plenty.
The only Oscar award I was interested in was Wally Pfister's. I'm so glad he won. He has done great work with Nolan and deserved the recognition. He knows his stuff and if he isn't supporting 3D I won't either. Of course it helps that I already didn't support it. I also agree that 3D is stalling actual progress in home video technology and I hope that Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung only lose money on it so that they can get back to improving the home theater experience for everyone.
I'm not anti-3D for the people who like it. If you like it, great. I hope it sticks around for you.
To me it looks like shit. It looked like shit in Avatar and every-other 3D movie I've seen. At least after 10 minutes of the "oh this looks different". It's not immersive, it's distracting. It doesn't look "3D " as in what real things look like, it's some weird looking approximate. The image is softer and darker, there's always ghosting and cross talk, yes even in Avatar. It has promise, but it is simply not there yet.
It's all a matter of taste. Anti-3D people should take a breath and stop calling people that like it morons that just like shiny objects. and Pro-3D people should stop saying people who don't like it are anti-new technology or haters. Both statements are balls to the wall retarded and pure immature fanboy jibber jabber.
You can like what you like, or dislike what you dislike, with out feeling the need to take a crap on everyone with a different perspective or taste. Stop with the childish crap already. Get over yourselves and let the people who love 3D free to praise it and the ones who hate it free to slam on it. This is like the political climate in this country, a seriously idiotic obsession with "US VS THEM". "OUR SIDE VS THE OTHER SIDE".
We 'should' all be fans of technology. and technology is science and science has no room for that crap.
3dinAK YOU are a major idiot. seriously NOBODY said Color TV was a fad everyone who saw it IMMEDIATELY knew it was going to be the future because it was NATURAL people SEE in color anyways dumb ass.
Nobody called DVD a fad either everybody who saw it immediately knew it was going to replace VHS and the only ones who questioned it were the few, very few, who had invested in Laserdisc and were not ready to let go of their out dated technology.
NOBODY said Blu Ray or HD was a fad either, HD is closer to how the films are presented in the theaters and everyone knew that watching films in HD was closer to the home theater experience than DVD was, the ONLY people who called it a fad were the HD-DVD supporters and it was not HD movies they were attacking it was Blu Ray as a delivery for HD movies.
3D is NOT comparable to color, NOBODY sees in "3D" as it is presented in films.
DVD is not comparble to 3D because DVD is a means of presenting a film it is not a film technique. This is the dumbest part of your argument. MAYBE if you had compared 3D to Surround Sound or to Anamorphic Wide Screen you could have had an argument except you KNEW you could not because those technologies actually do assist in the immersion.
If a person watches a movie in color all they do is see the actors and the world as it really is.
If a person watches a film on DVD all they do is see more detail than if they saw it on a VHS.
If a person watches a film on Blu Ray or any other HD format they are seeing better quality image closer to the original film version.
IF a person watches a film in wide screen instead of the old format then they see more of the world around the actors.
If a person watches a film with a surround soundtrack they here sounds distributed as if they were really there.
BUT when a person watches a film in 3D they either get headaches, hurt their eyes, or spend the entire time concentrating on the effect and not enjoying the film. That is what makes it a FAD, eventually people will realize that 3D is OK in small doses but NOBODY will want EVERYTHING in 3D EVER.
ok phatrat1982.you're right.everyone else is wrong.Everyone has an opinion.I'm not trying to sell you on it but seems to be more people tend to think that if a movie is converted into 3D,they are ruining the movie.Granted the movie is already made.I guess I would say,if you don't like 3D,so be it.I never said everything should be in 3D.I don't think people see in 2D either.maybe you do.But I can see depth.Anyways,I could go on,but why?
Avatar was the first 3-D movie I saw in a long time, and that was in January 2010. Now it's March 2011, and I feel that 3-D is just a useless cash cow right now. God bless Chris Nolan for not being sucked in to all this.
Glad to hear these good news. I hope Warner Bros. changes these plans as the focus should be on
the picture and sound quality of blu ray. They should start out with increasing the bit rates and including 7.1 soundtracks in Dolby Digital Plus or maybe PCM again. Long live Christopher Nolan.
3DinAK - People said the same thing when 3D came out in the late 80's that it was going to be the new format and be the future of all movies - then it died - sure it came back but it will be the same thing as before however it will stick around a little bit longer till people finally get tired of the expensive movie tickets and expensive equipment they have to buy on top of that realize they are watching movies in sub-par picture quality.
DanzG-I really don't recall what movies were out in the late 80's that were in 3D.And the ones that I do recall had those red and blue glasses.I think 3D is here to stay.I don't think everything should be in 3D,but there's a few movies like "inception" that should be in 3D.Technology is above and beyond what it was in the 80's.
I have this feeling 3D is going to be the new version of full screen/ pan and scan. Where a technician is sitting at a computer, not consulting the director or cinematographer, and making decisions that should only be made from said filmmakers.
Chris Nolan is easily the best director working today and Wally Pfister is one of the best cinematographers around (so glad to see him finally get recognized with an Oscar), so not only does this make me no sense. Sure they can make some money from sales, but I doubt many people would buy it if they knew it wasn't director/ cinematographer approved. And I wonder if Nolan will continue his relationship with Warner Bros. if this happens.
I posted this exact link to the the other thread yesterday. . . Warner Brothers are just trying to make more money. . . They were pushing Nolan to do TDKR in 3D but he refused. . . I don't hate 3D, in fact if something is filmed in 3D then it can achieve what high contrast levels have been trying to achieve in tv's for a long time, however it comes down to Director's intent. . . Martin Scorsese could have filmed Raging Bull in color, but he didn't. . . Film is an art form and a form of entertainment which is why there is so much controversy over 3D. . . Ultimately I don't think Inception should be converted but film is also an industry, I'm just not going to buy it. . .
Im mixed. On one hand I don't like a studio adding something to a movie without the filmmakers permission. Nolan is a filmmaker I respect and I think his wishes should be honored. On the other hand Im a big 3D fan and think Inception would look great in that format. Its a great movie with excellent visuals and 3D would be a huge benefit for an already fantastic movie. I hope Nolan eventually comes around and starts seeing how amazing 3D can be for his excellent movies
I am indifferent to 3D. If you don't want to buy the 3D edition when it comes out, don't buy it, let people who do enjoy it have it. No need to get worked up.
Speaking of 3D in general... I'm not going to lambast it and say it's for idiots with short attention spans; that kind of overgeneralization indicates the individual representing that opinion is just as narrow-minded as the people he thinks he's criticizing. I think 3D serves certain types of films and serves them well. However, thinking every blockbuster has to be in 3D shows some incredible short-sightedness.
Apart from Nolan and Pfister's aversion to 3D overall, "Inception" is a film that needs to remain in 2D, regardless of how tantalizing the notion of the changing face of the dreamscapes could really "pop" in 3D seems. Even if James Cameron had made this movie, it could still only work in 2D for one simple fact; the very core of the concept of the movie is creating illusions. The film very ably illustrates how perspective hides the boundaries of the dream world. Take the Escher steps for example: remember the scene where the stairs are created that seem to join at a landing and continue upwards, but in fact end at a sudden drop? That effect only works if the viewer does not have any depth perception. That works in 2D. If you introduce 3D to that scene, the drop-off is perceivable from a distance, and the effect is ruined. That would happen in a number of scenes in the film and would ruin a lot of incredible set design and practical/computer effects.
So aside from general opinions about whether 3D is "just a fad" or not, "Inception" is one film that won't work in 3D at all. Choosing to convert it will result in not just a matter of making it look "gimicky," but will in fact create plot holes and ruin the story line.
Unfortunately, the studio OWNS the film and can really do with it as it wishes. That's the price you pay for needing $150 million or whatever to make a film - you compromise and give up certain rights. So people should stop whining about it like 5 year olds, just don't go see it. Simple. The 2D version is still available, so watch that instead.
"Unfortunately, the studio OWNS the film and can really do with it as it wishes. That's the price you pay for needing $150 million or whatever to make a film - you compromise and give up certain rights."
That's why I like George Lucas. Say what you want about him but the dude forks over his own cash and gets to call the shots. He basically said screw you studios.
God bless you Christopher Nolan. This 3-D fad only serves to annoy many people. It, just like the overuse of CGI, is destroying story-telling and the importance of good acting. At least YOU, Mr. Nolan, seem to understand that. Believe it or not, action movies SUCK without a good story and without good acting, and Nolan has had both in every recent movie.
I just don't get why some people can't seem to do without 3-D. It really adds little to nothing to the movie. What are we going for, total immersion so that we feel like we're right there in the movie? Please. Let's at least attempt to keep reality separated from fantasy. 3-D is a gimmick, always has been and always will be.
@ Atreyuu2003 : I never said the film lacked a story. I said it lacked an "original" story and that Cameron seemed more interested in the technology than writing an original story. He essentially bowdlerized many other scripts to other films in order to tell a story that has been told before in various ways.
This, by no means, made the movie un-watchable, it merely seemed to point out ( to me at least ) that the point of the film was for Cameron to create a very imaginative world with an evolving technology set.
I do agree with you on Yogi Bear being horrible. I prefer classic Yogi...
I'm glad someone is turning their back on 3d, I'm getting really sick of "3d" movies that are just up-converts from 2d, was inception even shot in 3d? if it wasn't, why are bothering? it was brilliant movie and adding a gimmick that would make every one look like cardboard cutouts would just ruin the movie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Unfortunately, the studio OWNS the film and can really do with it as it wishes. That's the price you pay for needing $150 million or whatever to make a film - you compromise and give up certain rights."
That's why I like George Lucas. Say what you want about him but the dude forks over his own cash and gets to call the shots. He basically said screw you studios. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah that's why he is now working on converting ALL the Star Wars movies to 3d, just so he can add a few more million to his bank balance.
Iron Eagle 74 - Couldn't have said it better myself. It's a fine balancing act between our perceived "reality" to become involved with the story presented before us and the constant "distraction" of new 3D technology which serves only to remind us "we are watching a 3D movie" thus removing our input - our imagination - of becoming involved with the story and its characters on a deeper level. Perhaps 3D has its place and future in Games, but Cinema has its roots in Theatre which requires from its audience a suspension of belief. All this new technology most probably will have better applications for Computer Games; if we need a more "real" experience nothing beats Live Theatre - natural 3D without all the headaches.
All these people that say that Inception was meant for 3D are going against what Christopher Nolan said about his own film. He said he tested converting the film into 3D in post production but decided that while it was possible it couldn't be converted to a standard he was happy with.
If Nolan himself can't make 3D work IN HIS OWN FILM how can anybody else do it.
