2D animated movies in 3D?

A friend and I had a conversation yesterday about "The Lion King" in 3D. She claimed to really enjoy it because it doesn't have that blurry depth problem most 3D movies have. It perplexed me because isn't watching a 2D animated film in 3D like having a piece of paper being waved in front of your face? At least with 3 dimensional objects you can easily see the depth of field, but at the same time it's what causes those migraine inducing effects.

I then asked her if the animation was still fluid and she said yes. At first I found that hard to believe, but after imagining it for awhile I can see it.

I look back on some of the movies I've seen in 3D: Avatar, Saw 7, Final Destination 5....each having scenes that I had to close my eyes from because the image wasn't pleasant to the eye. Each film had their moments in 3D, sure, but overall the experience wasn't worth it.

So after thinking about it, it made more sense to me that a piece of paper given fake depth is better than having a 3d object, which something that already has depth, be given more fake depth.

So where am I going with this? Since my knowledge of 3D conversion is limited, I can't really say it's possible, or even probable, but wouldn't it be cool to have NIMH be re-released in 3D? They would actually have to clean up the print and actually care about it, but I think there's an audience for this. It might actually enhance the experience. Imagine seeing the depth in the owl's tree or in the rosebush. NIMH has enough of a cult following for it to be a possibility.

....Think about it for awhile.

So where am I going with this? Since my knowledge of 3D conversion is limited, I can't really say it's possible, or even probable, but wouldn't it be cool to have NIMH be re-released in 3D? They would actually have to clean up the print and actually care about it, but I think there's an audience for this. It might actually enhance the experience. Imagine seeing the depth in the owl's tree or in the rosebush. NIMH has enough of a cult following for it to be a possibility.

[Knee-jerk reaction time]

No. I've been doing my best to boycott 3D ever since it became a thing. First, I wear glasses, so 3D means wearing glasses over my glasses, which I hate doing. Second, it's so transparently a cash-grab by the studios that I don't want to pay the higher ticket prices for the gimmick. Third, I've never felt that 2D was somehow less immersive than 3D. In fact, 3D can often break immersion if it's not done well.

So, even if the 3D in Lion King was OK, that doesn't mean that I'd welcome it for other movies. Heck, perhaps it's the fact that they could only do a limited amount of 3D effects that made it look "good." In any case, I don't really care to see any movie in 3D, let alone NIMH.

Now get off my lawn, pesky kids. ;)

Normally I would agree with you and I'm basing my opinion based on a conversation with a friend and my crazy logic, but I'm simply imagining a what if. I watch a LOT of movies and I'm always trying to find ways to enhance the experience and experiment because that's how we evolve.

"Coraline" (great movie by the way) is an example of putting 3D to good use. It's a stop motion film that really immerses you into its world and has great use of color and effects that really compliment the 3D. It's use of 3D depth actually works in conjunction with the film and sucks you in. If you do get a chance to see it in 3D Id suggest you check it out because it's one of the few cases were it works

Now let's compare it to "Saw 7" (slilit movie by the way). Its 3D was used to show gimmicky effects like having a saw being thrown in your face or having severed body parts of a woman being thrown at your face after she was hit by a go-kart with a spear attached to the front.

It just goes to show that it all depends how one uses technology. I think NIMH could create a "Coraline" experience because scenes such as the owl and the entry into the rose bush could look cool with a little depth applied. It's not like effects are being thrown at you and as mentioned it's not as likely to give you a headache.

.....Or you can just be an old man that shoos kids off his lawn.

This brings to mind Star Wars' upcoming 3D conversion. That itself is a cash-grab, just like Simon said. (Oooh, what a pun! :lol:) The fact that it's (What else?) the gimmicky Prequels and a yet another gimmicky OT Special Edition Edit with most likely even more gimmicky changes, viewed with gimmicky technology that will probably include the price of glasses as well as the already high price of a ticket by the time it comes out[=http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2011/9/28/price-of-3d-tickets-on-the-rise-sony-to-blame.html]that will probably include the price of glasses as well as the already high price of a ticket by the time it comes out, I can only imagine it being seen by Lucas-Worshippers, Addicted Star Wars Consumers, or 3D fanatics.

Anyway, NIMH in 3D... Well, the movie was immersive even if it only ever was in 2D. Heck, even though it only had 2-channel (With a 4-channel Master) stereo sound, it was still a satisfying experience. There was a form of surround sound available at the time: Dolby 70mm Six-Track, which is the equivalent of 4.2 Sound. (Basically 5.1 as you know it with two LFEs and one Rear channel) All three original Star Wars movies (yes, even back in 1977) had a 70mm Six-Track mix in addition to the slightly different 35mm Stereo mix during their theatrical runs. NIMH didn't need to have Six-Track audio for it to be a great experience. 5.1 audio would definitely have a nice effect for the movie (The owl's voice with a subwoofer... Oh, man!), but it won't give it what it didn't already have. It did not rely too much on fancy technology to tell a story; the special effects were great, but I was way more enamored of the plot than the effects.

My point is, though 3D might be nice to have, (you can probably upconvert it to 3D on a 3D TV) it won't change what the film really is. Unless MGM tries something stupid like add back in the Library scene with Isabella as a giant CGI slug, or make Jenner shoot first just before Sullivan kills him so Sullivan won't seem so much like a murderer when he kills Jenner, or alter things drastically just to make it fit in better with Timmy to the Rescue. (Like replacing every one of the original actors' performances with their TttR counterparts, or not having Mrs. Brisby move the block at the end to explain why the rats don't have a statue in her honor) But what are the odds of that?

Steven

I fail to see how this would be a cash-grab, if that's what you're implying. This would be quite risky and would require much effort. I get that you people don't want NIMH re-released with such a gimmick as 3D, but I like taking risks and seeing how things could change the experience. I know a simple re-release without 3D would make you happy and I would love to get the opportunity to see the film on the big screen for the first time.

I'm not stupid (well I am actually, but that's besides the point), I know it's probably a bad idea, or even a terrible idea. Why bring it up then? Because there's always that possibility that the beauty of the film could be enhanced, just like "Coraline" by being in 3D.

...and to those who complain about cash-grabs. It's called capitalism, please accept and love it. We like to blame corporations and imagine CEOS with horns on their heads eating babies for breakfast, but at the end of the day, we, the consumers, are the ones to blame.

I fail to see how this would be a cash-grab, if that's what you're implying. This would be quite risky and would require much effort. I get that you people don't want NIMH re-released with such a gimmick as 3D, but I like taking risks and seeing how things could change the experience. I know a simple re-release without 3D would make you happy and I would love to get the opportunity to see the film on the big screen for the first time.

I'm all for a rerelease, and I guess I'd grudgingly accept "3D" as a motivator for it, but I'd still see the 2D version even then.

...and to those who complain about cash-grabs. It's called capitalism, please accept and love it. We like to blame corporations and imagine CEOS with horns on their heads eating babies for breakfast, but at the end of the day, we, the consumers, are the ones to blame.

Just because it's capitalism doesn't mean I can't vote with my dollars and complain about it. I recognize that 3D brings in the money, and that movie studios aren't some benevolent being but rather looking out for their bottom line. Fine. But I still think 3D is a stupid fad that does nothing to measurably increase my enjoyment of a film, but does a lot to line the pockets of the movie industry without a significant amount of effort on their part. It's a gimmick, and I'd rather see more engaging (dare I say 'three dimensional') stories and characters than some false depth via optical illusion on the silver screen. I hope it will ultimately die out in the long run, and I'm going to do my part to accelerate its death.

Just because it's capitalism doesn't mean I can't vote with my dollars and complain about it. I recognize that 3D brings in the money, and that movie studios aren't some benevolent being but rather looking out for their bottom line. Fine. But I still think 3D is a stupid fad that does nothing to measurably increase my enjoyment of a film, but does a lot to line the pockets of the movie industry without a significant amount of effort on their part. It's a gimmick, and I'd rather see more engaging (dare I say 'three dimensional') stories and characters than some false depth via optical illusion on the silver screen. I hope it will ultimately die out in the long run, and I'm going to do my part to accelerate its death.

My point exactly...it's up to the individual consumer to decide what's a cash grab and what isn't. Voting with your wallets....as you said. I don't want 3D to die entirely as much as it may be a "gimmick." Cell phones, computers, and even the internet started out as gimmicks.....look where we are now. Though it's hard to see the overall usefulness of 3D, especially since the negatives such as wearing uncomfortable glasses and paying more per ticket don't help, it's something that's in its infancy and I can see it growing to something more user-friendly in the future.

When video games were in their infancy (they technically still are) corporations exploited the crap out of this new "gimmick" by creating cheaply produced software and hardware at high prices...causing the infamous "Video Game Crash of 1984." Back then no one would expect said "gimmick" would become an important part of pop culture in just a few years.

I still see hope for it and maybe having NIMH in 3D would change your mind.

I fail to see how this would be a cash-grab, if that's what you're implying. This would be quite risky and would require much effort. I get that you people don't want NIMH re-released with such a gimmick as 3D, but I like taking risks and seeing how things could change the experience. I know a simple re-release without 3D would make you happy and I would love to get the opportunity to see the film on the big screen for the first time.

I'm not stupid (well I am actually, but that's besides the point), I know it's probably a bad idea, or even a terrible idea. Why bring it up then? Because there's always that possibility that the beauty of the film could be enhanced, just like "Coraline" by being in 3D.

...and to those who complain about cash-grabs. It's called capitalism, please accept and love it. We like to blame corporations and imagine CEOS with horns on their heads eating babies for breakfast, but at the end of the day, we, the consumers, are the ones to blame.

I wasn't implying that 3D NIMH would be a cash-grab, the Star Wars thing was just a side note. I'm sorry. :oops: What I was actually thinking was that even though the movie's already perfect, it'd be cool to have 3D in addition to the original 2D, as well as Surround Sound in addition to the original Dolby Stereo. Being a Star Wars OOT fan has made me pro-film preservation, but that doesn't mean upgrades can't be made, as long as the upgrades complement the original, not replace it. For me, the more options there are, the better!

Steven

After seeing the last Harold and Kumar film in 3D, I'm still very confident that 3D has its purpose in the world of cinema. They really pulled off the 3D to good effect. Like I said, it's all how we use technology; we can use it to show off gimmicky effects, or we can use it to better immerse ourselves into a world, or in Harold in Kumar's case, use it to comedic effect.

Oho...my flavour of discussion.

So yeah, 3-D... It depends on the film. Like many film critics, I'm of the opinion that 3-D FAILS MISERABLY when it is done with films that have dark pallettes. The Lion King has a relatively bright pallette, which makes the already-vibrant scheme absolutely brilliant in 3-D. 3-D works best when it's given something to work with, and it's a well-known film fact that it is difficult to see depth without vibrancy and wide colour pallettes in animation. Transformers is a prime example of a film that bombed 3-D (in my opinion) because the 3-D just made everything blurrier and harder to focus on. With something like The Lion King, the 3-D becomes much more effective. I don't have to focus on a thousand different moving things that are difficult to distinguish between due to the narrow colour pallette. Now there's a bunch of colours to help me along, Halleluja!

So, you may ask, what about SoN? Bluth's masterpiece has an admittedly vibrant colour pallette, but the film itself is still very dark. Or perhaps dark is not the right word for it...subdued might work better, with exception to some scenes. The farm scenes are generally browns, greens, and yellows; the rose bush scenes are blues, greys, and darker colours (again, with some exceptions like the court room and the encounter with Brutus). The pallette here just wasn't made with 3-D in mind, and it doesn't happen to be one of those films that happens to have a good 3D-compatible colour range. And what about the lighting effects? If anything, those might just give people headaches in 3-D; they're already dazzling, even considering the time they were done in, but with the added 3-D it might be a bit too much.

To me, the Secret of NIMH is just not right for 3-D, nor is 3-D right for it. I'm perfectly happy with my DVD of the movie, though a theatrical re-release in 2-D would be most appreciated.

Ah, you do have a point about the lighting effects. They are headache inducing enough in 2D. Blair Witch Project in 3D would be epic though. LOL.

Thing is....how would you go about a re-release of NIMH into theaters? I guess we could write to MGM, but we would each need to write to them...multiple times. Lion King has the privilege of being a well known Disney movie, so adding 3D to it and putting it back into theaters would be easy way to make a buck. Not so much with NIMH. We would have to have something to lure in people into the theaters. We would have to consider advertising costs among other expenses. This is not going to be easy, but dreams have a way of becoming reality, and I guess we can try something if we put our heads together.