*sigh*

[serai]

.

Well, I guess I won't be seeing The Hobbit. Damn.

Comments

[elderberrywine.livejournal.com]

Won't be seeing it in 3-D, that's for damn sure. Luckily, they seem to generally release a 2-D version along with the other.

[jewelsong.livejournal.com]

Why? Because it will be in 3D, or because Jackson will be directing?

Seems to me that the 3D movies are getting better and better, just like the CGI did.

And if it's Jackson's direction, won't you even see it once, to give it a fair shot?

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Because like many, many people, I cannot watch a 3-D film. The effect not only doesn't work on my eyes, it gives me a pounding headache. So no 3-D Hobbit for me.

Also, it's a damn stupid idea to make the thing in 3-D because they are going to lose a lot of money. The numbers over the last year show that attendance at these things is going steadily downward, regardless of whether the quality is improving. Audiences simply don't have the bucks to plunk down on it, and they're realizing that in droves. To bet on this fad lasting another two years...not wise.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

P.S. I personally don't think that CGI is improving all that much. The most convincing CGI effects I've ever seen are still the ones in Jurassic Park, a movie that came out 17 years ago. Nothing has topped those dinosaurs for me.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Gods, I hope so. It would be moronic beyond belief for them to bank on the 3-D thing. Attendance for 3-D is heading downward fast - each one that comes out earns less than the one before it. Just because Avatar (an abysmally awful film, in my opinion) made a shitload of money, the Hollywood dipshits get all excited and think a new gravy train has arrived. But they're blowing it big time by tacking on an extra $5 to ticket prices that most people think are already too high. $18 for a movie? In the middle of a frigging depression? Are they fucking HIGH??

[elderberrywine.livejournal.com]

Exactly. When you have to look through trifocals as it is (SIGH), balancing those damnable plastic jobs on top of them, not to mention trying to hit the sweet spot, is just ridiculous. And oh yeah. Charge me more for this dubious pleasure.

*flails walker*

[mole-caz.livejournal.com]

Gosh I hope there's a 2D version because 3D makes me feel sick - just can't watch it!

[serai1.livejournal.com]

Same for me. But I'd still be disappointed because flattening out a 3-D image just creates something awkward-looking, as the 3-D junk is still really obvious even without the actual effect.

This is what happens when you let the moneymen get too involved in production.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

See my answer to mole_caz. If there's no 2-D in theaters, I doubt I'll even get the DVD. I'll wait 'til Netflix has it.

[fantasy-fan.livejournal.com]

I hate the thought that it will be in 3-D, for multiple reasons.
1. I want these movies to be classics, not gimmicks. 3-D is nothing more than a gimmick, not the wave of the future.
2. I won't pay the extra money, and it's just greed on their part to ask me to.
3. Like many other people, I can barely watch a movie in 2-D without coming out with a terrible headache. 3-D is not physically possible for me.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

I'm right there with ya. Not only a headache, but I the 3d doesn't work for me. HATE it.

[serai1.livejournal.com]

My only consolation in this situation is that I'm not nearly as excited about The Hobbit as I was about LOTR. I've never managed to read this one all the way through; it was not the touchstone book for me that LOTR was. If they get Martin Freeman for Bilbo, I'll definitely see it when it comes out on disc, but I don't feel I'm going to be missing out on anything very important.