Warner Bros. Scraps 3D Version of New Harry Potter Flick

More like this
11

Comments

Comments are closed on this article

avatar

mesiah

October 14, 2010 at 2:38am

Before we all go patting WB on the back we better wait to see if this wasn't just a calculated decision. Think about it. The 3d is running behind schedule. Someone says "I don't think we can release the 3D on time." Then someone realizes... "Hey... we can release the 2d version now.... then 3 months later release the 3D version and all these morons will come and pay to see it again!"

Cameron did it with Avatar and it worked like a charm, except he didn't even add anything major in, he just added a few clips of some stupid animal that no one really cares about. Hell, the re-released dark night without even having a reason. You watch and see, this is just a ploy to bring in repeat viewers.

Personally I have no desire to see the movie in 3d, so it won't effect me. And although plenty of people see movies they like multiple times, I find it disingenuous to hold back portions of a movie for the sole purpose of releasing a special edition.

avatar

Zachary K.

October 13, 2010 at 2:54pm

good, if you have to CONVERT it to 3d, it is bad 3d. good 3d is shot in 3d, with 3d cameras. i am all for 3d as long as they don't half ass it by making it an after effect.

avatar

Havok

October 13, 2010 at 3:43pm

http://bit.ly/d1MDgI

It's a running gag about Star Wars going to 3D, but this part does your comment justice!

avatar

dcrail

October 13, 2010 at 10:03am

I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks, I'm just happy that there will be one less 3D movie.  Really hoping this is the begining of the death of the 3D fad. (not realistic, but hopeful)

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

October 13, 2010 at 10:23am

They are making movies that take advantage of 3D to give a show at the expense of any kind of story. I would rather see movies in 3D that make sense and can be awesome in 3D like Star Trek movies with large space battles and even Saving Private Ryan in the battle scenes would have been great in 3D. The battle scenes in the HBO series Band of Brothers would have been great too, if they were shot in 3D. 

Sex in the city would suck in 3D, heck it sucks period. IMO. 

This all said, going to a movie just because it's in 3D is just plain stupid. I want a great story. 

IMO a good 3D movie is one that doesn't need 3D to be enjoyable like Avatar is. I think that Sci Fi films and action films will benefit more from 3D then anything else and again it's scary to think that films will be and are being made exclusively for 3D. 

avatar

D00dlavy

October 13, 2010 at 9:12am

While anyone who claims that Harry Potter > Lord of the Rings probably suffers from a myriad of birth defects (eugenics, people, eugenics!), Harry Potter is actually pretty decent.  I enjoy the story and characters, and Severus Snape is a deeply memorable character both on film (thanks Rickman) and in the literature.

Take pride in *not* watching Sex and the City or something of its ilk.  You *should* probably go out and at least see these films, however [in order].  You may be surprised.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

October 13, 2010 at 8:42am

I take special pride in being able to say that I would rather have root canals in all my remaining teeth without novacain than to sit through a single Harry Potter movie, 3D or no, no freaking way.

I haven't read a single Harry Potter book or seen a single Harry Potter movie, I'm very proud of that fact. When the first book came out the talking heads were claiming that Harry Potter was better than the Lord Of The Rings saga, that's when I decided I would have nothing to do with Harry Potter. Lord of the Rings are golden man and Harry Potter is a story about a boy that rides broom sticks. Yuck.

avatar

isamuelson

October 13, 2010 at 9:49am

Hmm. Maybe I better tell you that Star Wars is better than LOTR? 

To base your hatred on something that someone else says is ludicrous beyond anything imaginable. It shows how shallow you are to hate something because someone else says it's better than LOTR just seems a little out there.

Is it wrong if someone thinks it's better? Not EVERYONE enjoys LOTR (I do, but so what?) just like not everyone enjoys Harry Potter. Me, I like them both. They are both fantasy and provide excellent escapism, fantasy and magic along with a pretty decent storyline.

If you look at my library (both books and DVD), I have both the LOTR books and movies as well as the HP movies and books.

So, for me to like HP and LOTR, is there something wrong with me? 

For you to be "proud" of not having read an HP novel also seems to scream of someone that is pretty conceited in themselves. That makes you better than the rest of us? No, no more than me having read LOTR and HP makes me better than you. It doesn't.

BTW, HP is NOT just about a boy who rides broomsticks. It details the issues a child has due to losing his parents, being the outcast at school, making friends and eventually falling in love, but without making it like a lot of romantic novels. Each book gets darker than the previous and each details the angst that Harry as well as the other students goes through as they get older, starting from 11 years old up until their final year at 17 years old.

The movies don't do the novels justice at all. The novels are much better, but I still enjoy the movies as well. Again, it's escapism for me. A time for me to sit back, watch a movie and enjoy it.

 

 

 

avatar

Baer

October 13, 2010 at 12:55pm

Excellent retort. LOTR is an epic both in book and *(with the extended versions) in Movie. In fact having read the saga twice in my life at different times I was a little disapointed in the Movie but it was still great. Happy Potter is different, it is excellent and it does teach a number of lessons. Harry as a character is flawed as all of us are. I also think that the Harry Potter movie series has suffered a little from different directors. There are a number of inconsistancies from movie to movis, some of them quite noticeable (i e the distance to Hagreds cabin, the moving photos on the wall, the fireplace communications with Serious Black Etc).

I am glad that they are not going to convert it to 3D. When done well I like 3-D but when it relys on the effect instead of the story and acting then I look at it as a negative. When it is not converted correctly like in Clash of the Titans (which was horriable as far as 3D goes) then they are better off not doing it. I aplaud this decision.

avatar

misha573

October 13, 2010 at 9:31am

It ain't LOTR.  That's epic high fantasy.

But, its not bad for what it is.  Good teen fantasy (think famous five/hardy boys, but with the magicks...gosh I think I just dated meself)  Don't hate on HP 'cause a few idiots say stupid things...and most of all don't judge it if you haven't even experienced it.

It can't beat LOTR, but its helluva alot better than the eclipse crap that's been crapping up the screens recently!

And kudos to WB for NOT doing it in 3D.  Note WB: Good decision.  Note to others: Please, only do 3D if its meant for 3D...most stuff isn't meant for 3D...

avatar

I Jedi

October 13, 2010 at 9:20am

You based not enjoying a series on what a few critics happened to say in a comparrison to Harry Potter and LOTR? Honestly, why do people listen to critics to begin with? We all know those dumbasses go against the general thinking of the norms.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.
Don't have an account? Join Now.