Warner Bros. Calls Off 3-D Version of `Potter' Film

[Danno Anderson]

Warner Bros. Calls Off 3-D Version of `Potter' Film
By Michael White and Sarah Rabil - Oct 8, 2010 1:42 PM PT
Tweet LinkedIn Share Print Email
The next “Harry Potter” film won’t be shown in 3-D because Warner Bros. couldn’t convert the movie in time for the Nov. 19 release date.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- Part 1” will be distributed in the standard two-dimensional format, the Time Warner Inc. studio said today in a statement.

The decision means Warner Bros. will lose the average $3- per-ticket premium typically charged for movies shown in 3-D. The first six films, all shown in 2-D, have averaged $903 million in global ticket sales, according to Box Office Mojo, a researcher based in Sherman Oaks, California.

“We were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality,” the studio said.

The final movie in the “Potter” series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows -- Part 2,” will be released in both 2- D and 3-D, Warner Bros. said. It’s scheduled for release on July 15, 2011, according to the studio.

 

[Stefan Christou]

So this was never shot in 3d? Instead it was a rotoscope affair?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

If you want to make a 3D film - shoot it in 3D.

 

[Tim Hole]

This is BS. Because I know exactly what they are going to do - a rerelease ten weeks before the second part - this time in eye gouging post 3D.

I can bearly wait to see it...in fact I am looking forward to it about as miuch as Titanic 3D next year - or is it 2012?

Sorry for negative and sarcastic post.

If you want to make a 3D film - shoot it in 3D.

Mark if you said nothing else for the rest of your life I would consider you a wise soul. I really like the idea of 3D but the studios are going to destroy it. I have not seen an exceptional Stock 3D film - at all.

Mark Kermode has voiced more than once about his feelings towards it. Although I do think this is quite funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJHX5ip68p4&feature=channel

 

[Marc Wielage]

Don't overlook the fact that Tim Burton's recent Alice in Wonderland was also converted from 2D -> 3D, and it not only made a billion dollars, it also got great reviews -- and it was very well-done.

Post-3D conversion can be done well; it's just that it takes time, money, and talent, and it helps if you do the conversion as the movie is shot, and lock the picture early. I suspect they just ran out of time on Harry Potter 7 to meet the November deadline.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

It's great that if they don't get it right, they don't do it.
I'm not a big fan of 3D movies. I really hope it's a hype that will die in a couple of years... The only 3D movie I liked was Despicable Me.

BTW: I really really thought the look of Alice in Wonderland was awful...

 

[Steve Neilson]

Smart Move for Warner Bros

Smart Move for Warner Bros

Personally I think this was a smart move for warner bros. Mainly i think it is better to have it in 2d then have a 3d film and tons of people angry because the movie won't be out on time. To me it also shows that warner bro cares more about their customers then the money.

 

[Noah Kadner]

Not needed for Harry Potter- people will see it anyway. And no one wants that surprisingly angry backlash of the Clash of the Titans 3D conversion to blemish an otherwise well-respected series' swansong I'm guessing.

Noah

 

[Jason Darmanin]

I hate footage converted to 3D during post. Gives me a head ache. Saw Avatar in 3d and 2d. Only movie I prefer in 3D, but have to say that I too hope the trend dies soon, rather than later!

 

[Dominic Jones]

If you want to make a 3D film - shoot it in 3D.

Amen, brother, amen.

2D -> 3D conversion is just not able to produce the true stereoscopic effect - none of the objects themselves have any depth to them, it's just "cardboard cutouts" re-arranged in 3D space.

Frankly, I'm surprised that they didn't shoot the latest Potter films in 3D to start with, but there you go...

Dom.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

I too am of the croud that get headaches from 3D conversions. Too bad, because I really enjoy stereo otherwise.

Regards, Matt

 

[Marc Wielage]

Frankly, I'm surprised that they didn't shoot the latest Potter films in 3D to start with, but there you go...

All shot on film.

I don't agree that 2D->3D conversions always result in the audiences getting sick or getting headaches. Even productions shot originally in 3D can result in visual flaws due to alignment problems, optical issues, camera problems, and other technical challenges. Every major 3D show I know of has had lots of touch-ups that had to be made after the fact, just to compensate for production issues.

Again, go watch Alice in Wonderland in 3D and tell me where it looks bad. Great-looking billion-dollar movie.

 

[George Butterfield]

It's great that if they don't get it right, they don't do it.

They would but, this means it must be really, really bad!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Smart move... Phony 3D is, uh, well.. Phony. Besides, what matters at this point? None of the other preceding six films were released in 3D. No one is going to care if this one is or not, everyone is still going to see it/buy it.

If they want to do the phony 3D conversion thing, then by all means they should. But why not take a step back, start with the first film, and work through the entire set, then re-release the whole series. ...I'm sure they will do that anyway.

 

[M Most]

Smart move... Phony 3D is, uh, well.. Phony.

So is CGI and every visual effect ever done. Why is stereoscopic conversion any less "phony" than CGi characters, buildings, and landscapes? For that matter, just about everything in a motion picture or television show is "phony" by nature, unless that show happens to be a documentary, and even then...

Not to mention the fact that stereoscopic 3D in itself is "phony" because it isn't really 3D at all, it's two 2D images that are used to trick your brain into creating a, well, "phony" sense of depth that isn't really there. I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but I think you're drawing an artificial and unrealistic line between "phony" and "real".

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Yes, stereoscopic 3D is a trick.

Conversion achieved 3D is a trick of a trick. Storytellers haven't even mastered real stereoscopic storytelling yet.
Going this far in faking is:

a) producer smartassery
b) visual and perceptive circus
c) slap to the face of a cinematographer
c) giving bad name to 3D experience

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So is CGI and every visual effect ever done. Why is stereoscopic conversion any less "phony" than CGi characters, buildings, and landscapes? For that matter, just about everything in a motion picture or television show is "phony" by nature, unless that show happens to be a documentary, and even then...

You read way too much into my statement there. Or perhaps not too much, but more in the wrong direction. That isn't what I was saying at all. Of course CGI, visual FX, even filmmaking in general, is all phony or a form of visual trickery. Perhaps I should've clarified, but when I look at stereo conversions done from 2D originated material they, in many situations, become an orgy of rotoscope butchery and stylized layers.

I appreciate the work that goes into it, I was a CG artist and graphics programmer in the gaming sector for several years. It is a massive undertaking, I am not trying to detract from that in any way. And therein lies much of the issue -- it is a massive undertaking to do any stereo conversion. And would be a comparatively huge endeavor to do it "right", assuming it's even possible with the current tool set and any given film.

So, in the case of HP7, we would end up with the "regular version" and the "3D super stereo-lized version". The latter of which, if they did it "right" and went all the way with it, would not simply be a 3D version of the other, but something else. It would be a massive effort, on nearly the same level as recreating the entire film, while mutating into something else. That isn't going to happen and I don't see any reason for them to make a ViewMaster, cardboard cut-out, "my wife thought it was cute because it was like a pop-up book", version of the movie. ...other than to just slap a "3D" label on it and charge another $5 at the ticket window.

Now, all that said, I know they're not going to release it in 3D 'converto-vision' now, but they will eventually. And I'm fully expecting them to do full stereo conversions on the six previous films as well. Why not? Yet another perfect opportunity to milk it for all it's worth.

Yes, stereoscopic 3D is a trick.

Fake 3D is a trick of a trick. Storytellers haven't even mastered real stereoscopic storytelling yet. Going this far in faking is:

a) producer smartassery
b) visual and perceptive circus
c) slap to the face of a cinematographer
c) giving bad name to 3D experience

Exactly. I agree that no one has mastered stereoscopic storytelling yet. In fact, I think Hollywood is almost entirely missing the boat on what 3D can ultimately be. Not only that, but the studios are already abusing it by applying 3D almost anywhere and everywhere they can.

 

[peteb]

3D to me feels like those old Victorian inventions you sometimes see in museums.
Those inventions where you could see what they were trying to achieve, but it was all a bit "arse about face".
They so wanted to achieve their goal, but didn't have the correct tools to achieve it. They ended up with elaborate contraptions, pipes, leather and brass, twisting around unique glass vessels which in turn plugged into huge brass containers, leaking at the rivets as they were pumped full of steam. And all to warm up your feet at the end of the night.
I commend them for trying but I just couldn't help but think "nice try but it's all a bit shit really".

And this I feel is the same for 3D.
I honestly think I'd have a better time if they just kept it 2D. The last 3D film I went to see I was given a pair of 3D glasses and one of the lenses had a big scratch in it. I could of gone back up after the film had started and tried to find the assistant. And looking back it would of been the better option than sitting through the whole film craning my neck at some unnatural angle just so I could peer below the big scratch/smudge. But the fact is, if it wasn't for having to put on the stupid glasses in the first place, I wouldn't of had that problem. And does bringing the picture out in a slight pop up book manner really add anything to the experience, for me I have to say no!

So in till they invent proper 360 degree holographic 3d films, this 2.5d Victorianesque version can piss off.

Pete B

 

[mike ogden]

...Storytellers haven't even mastered real stereoscopic storytelling yet.

Um... what exactly IS 'stereoscopic storytelling' anyway?

I don't care how good the technicals are with 3D. Right now, it looks like a gimmick and brings nothing to visual storytelling other than a way for distributors/studios and financiers to charge you more for the same film.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

These brilliant conversion ideas go into same category as Casablanca in color. I'm surprised it's not in 3D already.
3D, "Pelham 123" grade style, and chairs shaking when a gun blasts.

Um... what exactly IS 'stereoscopic storytelling' anyway?

It's a spacial storytelling. You're not in Kansas any more.
"Canvas" is going bye-bye.

Has additional creative abilities for a cinematographer for which he has to trade in a lot of existing ones.
Same as a director. And editor. And sound department. And...

I don't care how good the technicals are with 3D. Right now, it looks like a gimmick and brings nothing to visual storytelling other than a way for distributors/studios and financiers to charge you more for the same film.

It looks like a gimmick because it's misused and treated as a gimmick. It brings nothing to a story because:
- technical aspects are not perfected yet
- story is not told in a way which benefits the most from added depth
- poor adaptation distorts the balance which distracts rather then merges

Storytellers are shooting 2D cinematography with two cameras. Directors and DP's are back in school with no books to learn from, scratching their heads while wanting to use a whole set of lens for imitating one. While lighting for canvas in spacial art. While cutting a space experience as a bunch of pictures. 24 fps stutter. Half of rules learned throughout the career are destined to a trash can and letting go is hard.

In fact, I think Hollywood is almost entirely missing the boat on what 3D can ultimately be.

Yup.

Which is why revolution of 3D won't come from Hollywood.