What is Digg?41 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Only the final 20 minutes? Last minute editing gimmicky fun for all.
- CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32C'mon, Emma Watson is HOT!
- loobis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26They'd get even more butts in the seats if they could convert the "Lindsay Lohan as Hermione" sketch from SNL into 3D and just pop that at the end of the movie. I'd be front and center.
- NeoCortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I would put on my hat and wizard's robe for that.
- deablo13, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21why do u hate harry potter, one of the best books in the world
- Jacob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14not in this one jackass
- LexisNexis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12^^^ SPOILERS ABOVE ^^^
- deablo13, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16try reading it and u will like it
- tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I can't tell you how many people say they hate Harry Potter yet never even picked up one of the books.
- geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Limit of the final 20 minutes probably due to the limits of time. Superman Returns IMAX 3-D was quite fun to watch.
If ticket prices are going to be high, you may as well get some bang for your buck that makes you want to go to a theater.
And, yes, I would go to a lot more movies if ticket prices came down. Hollywood and theaters haven't quite got supply & demand pricing down yet. - didoubleg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7you would see so many guys trying to motor boat those
- CaptainEO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7But you have to admit, View Masters are pretty damn cool too. Especially the one with the dinosaurs. Man, that ***** was crazy.
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The first 3 were pretty good. Then the angsty whining began to get worse with each book, and is now approaching Shinji proportions.
- starcrunchfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I used to not like Harrry Potter based solely on it competing with the Lord of the rings in the fantasy movie realm. I read the books and am no longer that way.
- Gordin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6At least, it will be 3d only in IMAX and it doesn't seem like it is going to effect the normal final version of the film as IMAX themeselves will take care of the conversion. Though 3d is fun sometimes, other times it feels too gimmicky and films done especially for 3d purposes end up badly.
- geekzapoppin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here's the thing. The film was not shot for 3D. It was shot flat. The 3D that will be shown at Imax theaters is computer-generated from the flat picture. In other words, it won't be true 3D. More like a View Master version of 3D. True 3D is much, MUCH cooler.
- deluxndotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+53d is overrated. I mean, is it really that cool? Maybe when you were like 6 but come on now. I also don't see how they think is will attract more people to see the movie. This technology has been around FOREVER.
- screamokid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4heck ill beat my bludger with that, and im not playing quidditch
- rufo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Crap. I saw Superman Returns in my local IMAX theater and the 3D effect was lame and distracting. The use of polarized lens for IMAX 3D just really didn't work out well. I usually prefer IMAX over regular film, but this will probably push me more towards a regular theater.
Let's just hope they don't ruin Spiderman 3 with their crappy 3D as well... - DaTaylorM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did you watch Wings of Courage (1995) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114952/ That was shot for IMAX 3D. There were some amazing sequences in that movie. I've seen a number of titles in IMAX 3D and so for nothing has come close to how well that movie was done for 3D.
The digital 3D transform for Harry Potter will just be a gimmick to get people to pay more to go see it in an IMAX. - screamokid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i cant read.
-kevin rose, episode something of diggnation - insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So does IMAX 3D not need glasses anymore? Or are people going to get a warning on screen to put glasses on? Seems dumb that it is only parts of the movie if glasses are needed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5nice
- molecool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm happy about this in general, but I'm not sure I'm jazzed about IMAX converting it - they should let In-Three do it, which do a much better job. The Superman scenes were converted by IMAX and they were complete crap, especially compared to what I've seen coming out of In-Three (btw, I'm not associated with those guys ;-)
- jas168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's the first thing I thought. They seemed to only do a very small percentage of the film in 3D, probably just to be able to advertise the movie as "Going 3D for Imax".
- radix33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I watched Polar Express in 3D IMAX for the entire movie, and it wasn't tiring or disorienting at all. In fact, I had a total blast with it. It is possible to do HP5 in 3D but since it's live action it may not be within the alloted budget.
- st3vo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Irvine spectrum, word.
- rufo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In Superman Returns they had a notice flashing at the bottom of the screen indicating when you were supposed to put your glasses on or take them off.
- Tiarlynn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was really looking forward to going to the SF IMAX opening night, but I'm not sure I want to now. Maybe I'm just not very exploratory but it seems like someone said above that it'll be distracting and gimmicky, and considering how much I'm looking forward to OotP—particularly the MoM battle in the last 20 mins—I'm thinking I should convince the gaggle of people I'm going with to turn tail to a more traditional theater and screening. This would all be moot if I still lived in LA and could go to the Grauman's!
There seem to be differing opinions on the 3D effects for Superman, though. I take it that the ones for OotP will be done in much the same way? The real question here is what's wrong with a good movie in its unaltered state? Sometimes less is more. - stellamaris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I saw the last Harry Potter movie in IMAX (not 3d) and it sucked. The faces were 40 feet tall and the screen was so big that you had to turn your head to look at who was talking. By the time it was over, our necks hurt and we felt like we had wasted our money.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on IMAX was a different story, however - a lot more fun. But that might have been because of what I took before the movie. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1who the ***** wants to see the FINAL 20 minutes? yeah, i like seeing the end of movies before i see the whole movie from beginning to end. kinda like how i love to read the last page of a book before i even start it.
this is stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupid - ericeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most of these Imax conversions only have this much 3D in them because watching the whole movie would put a strain on the eyes. I don't know the specifics, but I know they limit it for reasons that aren't purely last minute gimmicks.
- shortcircuit13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Frankly, I've read all of the Harry Potter books, and I really don't see what the huge deal about them is.
Are they good fantasy books? Yes.
Are they good children's books? Yes.
(Is Harry a sniveling little b---- in Book Five? Oh hell yes.)
They're good, but not spectacular to the point of taking over the world. - terplox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0****SPOILER*****
The reason only the last 20 minutes of the movie is 3D is probably because that is when the huge battle occurs between the DA and Voldemort's minions. A short preview of the movie explains that the wand battles will be way more intense than the previous movies, almost like lightsaber battles in Star Wars. So I can see how making the last 20 minutes in 3D would make the ending of the movie much more interesting. - Spacejack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why do you think ViewMaster isn't true 3-D? Some reels are done with flat plane pictures (obviously the cartoon ones, but also some composited ones). But ViewMaster is perfectly capable of providing a real 3-D viewing, of a still frame of course. It just has to have the right source material. The original ViewMaster reels were mostly travel-oriented and just using the old-fashioned method of using two cameras. It's primitive to be sure, but the effect of the illusion is the exact same thing: one picture for each eye. The level of depth detail is dictated by other things than the viewing medium.
All that being said, the "paper-doll" 3-D of which you speak can be quite convincing, provided that the imagery is appropriate for the format. I agree that it would be challenged by complex camera moves, maybe even simple ones. Or it could be a question of depth--something like "Rope" which never leaves a single room, would only have a certain necessary depth to the picture so you could probably do it in layers. Or something with a lot of depth, but with actors in the foreground and the background so far away that it becomes difficult to distinguish the depth layers anyway, except in comparison with a single foreground element which has minimal depth of its own. But "Return of the Jedi"? Forget it! And in fact most movies, just as you say, would be too complex for the process. - JsXtehj0o, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1wtf... and to think... all this joo wanted was transformers to be showed at the imax...
- nottidredd, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4one of the best books for 12 year olds
- theVariable, on 10/12/2007, -26/+4Snape Kills Dumbledore!
- lockedon, on 10/12/2007, -39/+4i hate harry potter!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is