Disney plans to shoot Pirates of the Caribbean 4 in 3D

[dfergie]

Richard Lawler

Rumors have been floating around for some time, but word is Disney has gone ahead and decided to shoot the next edition of one of the biggest movie franchises going in 3D

Source & More: engadget.com

 

[dfergie]

'Pirates Of The Caribbean 4' To Shoot In 3-D

Johnny Depp's fourth open-water adventure, 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,' will be shot in Disney Digital 3D.

That brings the total number of 3-D releases in the next two years to, oh, approximately 6,000 (not really, though it certainly feels that way). The noteworthy development for "Pirates," then, is not that it will hit theaters as a 3-D movie but that it will be shot in three-dimensions rather than converted during post-production

Source & More: mtv.com

 

[mike123abc]

I hate 3D, I hate this whole rush to charge extra for every ticket to inflate ticket prices.

 

[clapple]

I hate 3D, I hate this whole rush to charge extra for every ticket to inflate ticket prices.

So don't go.

 

[mike123abc]

So don't go.

The problem with 3D is not really the price. They want to make 3D because they can charge more. But, it does not make a better film. There are a huge number of technical issues as to why a 3D film does not look as good on the screen as a 2D movie. Everything from the dimness caused by wearing shades in the theater, to camera focusing issues not matching what the eye expects to see based on the 3D effect. Then they also affect the 2D showings since a 3D theater uses a silver screen instead of white and it causes a noticable shift in color of even 2D movies.

Avatar got around these problems because it was computer animated and the computer was able to animate what a camera would not be able to film.

Then there are the films that are shot in 2D, then redone to be 3D just to inflate the box office (i.e. Clash of the Titans).

 

[dlange]

The problem with 3D is not really the price. They want to make 3D because they can charge more. But, it does not make a better film. There are a huge number of technical issues as to why a 3D film does not look as good on the screen as a 2D movie. Everything from the dimness caused by wearing shades in the theater, to camera focusing issues not matching what the eye expects to see based on the 3D effect. Then they also affect the 2D showings since a 3D theater uses a silver screen instead of white and it causes a noticable shift in color of even 2D movies.

Avatar got around these problems because it was computer animated and the computer was able to animate what a camera would not be able to film.

Then there are the films that are shot in 2D, then redone to be 3D just to inflate the box office (i.e. Clash of the Titans).

I agree with you in some respect but when the studio decides to shot the movie in 3D from the beginning, I think it adds an extra dimension. The problem has been with movies where they've added the 3D-effects in post-production (i.e. Clash of the Titans - which btw would've been an awful movie in 2D as well).

 

[navychop]

ALL RIGHT! I surrender!

Yes, wifey, I'll go to the movie theater to see Johnny Depp, in 3D, on or soon after the May 20, 2011 release date. And we'll get there early enough to get good seats, not like we did for "Alice."