What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
29 Comments
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -5/+36It also spurred annoying Hot Topic kids.
- sysoprock, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29And thanks to the fat chicks who shop at Hot Topic, Nightmare Before Christmas T-Shirts are also in 3D!
It's like Jack Skellington is jumping right off the rolls! - Cougaboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16They're not talking about CGI, they're talking about 3-D...when you put on the glasses and things pop out at you.
- evilesttoast, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16and creepy Willy Wonka remakes.
- contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@darthosx
Sorry dude, while I do think Batman Begins has surpassed them all, Burton's first two Batflicks are still awesome in my book. - Adam_A-F, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is 3D like Jaws 3D - red and green glasses, that sort of thing.
I should hope that it's improved a bit since then.
Edit: Cougaboy got in there just before me... - VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I did see the 3d version of the nightmare before christmas, and all my kids enjoyed it much more at the theaters then at home. They did a great job of getting the film in 3d.
- J1000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I saw the re release of NBC, and the 3D qualities were almost non-existent. The movie still looked great, but 3D really needs to be incorporated at the time of filming in order to be effective. CGI movies also work well with 3D glasses because they can quickly render alternative camera angles (NBC would have required a second lens during filming). See Polar Express in IMAX 3D if you want a good example.
- notbrittish788, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason Nightmare did so well is because it was a cult classic that tons of people loved. The fact that it was even in theaters again had tons of people I knew to drive a good amount just to see it.
- stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I saw this movie in 3-D, and 3-D glasses are definitely required. They are the clear white kind and not the red and blue kind. Movie looked incredible.
- Sethbacca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oops ignore this.
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No your not, and I'm still confused. I'm reading the comments here because I thought it would clear it up. So far, it *does* seem they are talking about a glasses wearing audience, but then there are other comments I see while typing this, "They mean 3D Glasses.", answered with "Guess you haven't been to an IMAX 3D movie". So I'm *still* confused. Holly christ, I'm gonna read the comments made after this one and I just *hope* someone has explained exactly what it being talked about here. Grrr the tension.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Deceptive title. They mean dorky 3D glasses, not 3D animation.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Deceptive title. They mean dorky 3D glasses, not 3D animation."
@TheToecutter
I guess you've never been to an IMAX 3D movie. - nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, sorry they mean 3D in the "actual" sense .. the one time I decide not to read the article before commenting. Oh well.
- ovni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's an informative video about 3D movies:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ODBPZZQ52I4 - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2There's a company called 3-D? And it is doing well for itself? Is that what I'm supposed to take away from all this?
- Moopy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're thinking 20 years too late.
- marceline407, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The 3D in the Nightmare re-release was TERRIBLE!!!! well, ok. relatively it was alright. It's a start. It's to a point where kids wouldn't give a *****. But, the technology to convert 2D films to 3D has a looooong way to go. Lucas better not re-re-re-release star wars using this ***** 3D process. Just be a waste of time.
btw, does anyone know if lucas was planning on releasing star wars 3D in order from Episode 1-6? Cause that would frikin suck having to relive the release and advertisement of ***** prequels.
~Cody - wild, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Am I the only one that thought the article/title/descrption was claiming Nightmare was done in 3-D graphics ala a Pixar film? I got it after some reading, but I was definitely wondering wtf?
- Shatneresque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+03D is a gimmick that comes and goes in Hollywood every so often. Every time it comes back, there are a bunch of Johnny-come-latelys who claim it is "here to stay" this time. Yeah, sure.
The only difference here is that they are using post-processing to add a faux-3D effect to movies that were not originally made in 3D. At least with past 3D resurgences, you were getting the real thing! - Skurt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Creature from the Black Lagoon in 3d! FTW!
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What the hell do you mean here? I ask seriously because this whole article has been a rollercoaster of feeling that I somehow missed out on a CGI remake of Nightmare Before, (which I would never support), and thinking that people are wearing glasses while watching this "re-made" version. Please elaborate if you could.
- macabo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's nothing quick about preparing CG movie for simultaneous 3D release.
Each shot is composed of hundreds of elements all of which need to be re-rendered, grain in the renders has to either line up or be reduced to prevent sickening jitter between the left and right eye, and all roto/spline compositing work needs to be re-triangulated to line up with a new camera position. Sometimes in entirely CG movies layouts must be tweaked to keep the new second camera from intersecting existing set or character geometry, sometimes both 'eyes' are re-created from scratch to work better in 3d.
You also have to dial the convergence of the two cameras shot by shot for the best parallax effect without over or under-doing it (or making people sick).
A whole hell of alot of work goes into making CG movies ready for 3D release.
NBC alot of extra work - about a 1 year crunch for a good number of people. The entire film had to be matchimated in 3D so the original film could be re-projected over the matchimated stand-ins and re-rendered from a 2nd camera, then having to paint all the ugly stuff and special cases for every frame...
Nothing is easy in CG. - sprose718, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I saw Nightmare 3D in October. It was AWFUL. The movie was not made to be 3D, so they had silly little things jumping out at you at random times. All the silly hot topic kids loved the movie because they love the movie - not because of any extra quality that was added to it by being in 3D.
- nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I thought it was films like the Last Starfighter, Abyss, Jurassic Park, and Terminator 2 etc.. that spurred 3D
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I can't forgive this guy for giving us trashy Batman
- dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Jurassic Park was the turning point for 3D, it really show cased what 3D was capable of doing especially, to this date Jurassic Park still looks amazing.
- jsballardx, on 10/12/2007, -27/+2Tim Burton's movies are always boring and have an annoying look to them. He ruined the first Batman with it's over the top cityscapes. I never see any of his movies.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is