Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I will start this with an appology if someone else has mentioned it but i cudnt find any mentions of it on previous posts.

I was just wondering with the whole craze in films at the moment if they will intend to make the film 3D? does anyone know if they intend to do this or with live action animation is it currently impossible due to technology or cost?

anarchy

God I hope not.

3d films, 3d TV - am I the only person who doesn't want to wear wierd glasses every time I want to watch something?

Its not as if we've felt for the last hundred years that anything has been lacking from the quality of our entertainment. Would 'Citizen Kane' have been better in 3d? What about 'Its a Wonderful Life'? Great cinema is about good acting, good writing, good directing and skilled technical support. Wearing stupid glasses does not enhance the viewing experience imnsho...

I think this movie might be too far along to do it in 3D. Additionally, it's my understanding that this will be straight to DVD, not a theatrical release (it's only 70 minutes). As such, a 3D release is extremely unlikely.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:God I hope not.

3d films, 3d TV - am I the only person who doesn't want to wear wierd glasses every time I want to watch something?

Its not as if we've felt for the last hundred years that anything has been lacking from the quality of our entertainment. Would 'Citizen Kane' have been better in 3d? What about 'Its a Wonderful Life'? Great cinema is about good acting, good writing, good directing and skilled technical support. Wearing stupid glasses does not enhance the viewing experience imnsho...

There is a distinction between films as a storytelling medium and films as a spectacle. No-one watches Citizen Kane for the astounding visuals and no-one watches Avatar for the plot and characterisation.

At the risk of being shouted down and burned in effigy, I don't think any of us are expecting Ultramarines have a sensational plot and interesting, three dimensional characters. So yeah, were it getting a cinema release, 3d might well be a wise feature.

However, no, it's not likely to be 3d, given the direct-to-DVD thing and the difficulty of turning a non-3d film into 3d in post-production.

They've not finished the film yet, so rendering out a stereoscopic version would be perfectly acceptable at that stage in the development.

I hope they don't though, 3D films suck.

Tek wrote:They've not finished the film yet, so rendering out a stereoscopic version would be perfectly acceptable at that stage in the development.

I hope they don't though, 3D films suck.

You said it. I too HATE the 3d craze going on. Its so annoying, and it costs more to watch in a theater. Why hollywood? Why?! Oh cool the giants arm swung and it looks like its swinging at me......now can you please explain the plot of the movie so I can understand why the hobbits showed up?

This is my own personal view after watching only avatar as a 3d film.... I think 3d is great in the fact that anything like slow motion either bullit time or for dramatic effect is gr8 in 3d i htink it falls down when fast action scenes are put into 3d.... I found anything fast paced and 3d in avatar gave me a headace as my eyes just cudnt register the details fast enough.

I think the other problem people have with 3d as many of the responces have stated is that the 3d aspect greatly cuts into the budget and perhaps in hindsight developers shud of used that budget on a script (once again avata story was total balls tbh)

I didnt realise though that it was only going to be 70 minutes long.... i have abit of a hatered for any film under the 90mins mark as i feel on the whole they tend to be badly made.

bah anyways this is just my two cents

anarchy

I think the above two posters nailed it on the head.
3D does not a good film make. Like Anarachy mentioned, as a tool it can be used to perhaps enhance certain elements, like Bullet Time. But imagine an entire film shot in bullet time - it would suck the big one.

Plus like KC said, "ooh things are flying at me" is like playing peek-a-boo with a child. Sure, it's harmless fun at the beginning, but it's tiresome when filmmakers are thinking of specific elements to 3D-ise their films - breaking the fourth wall and obstructing the film's flow is all they're good for.

</rant>

In terms of the time, I'm not too fussed. I've seen plenty of decent films at all manner of lengths. I'd rather watch a 70-minute film with a well-distilled narrative than a 120-minute film with filler and random guff to space it out.

It is disappointing they didn't do at least 90 mins though. 70 mins smacks far too much of the producer's saying "this is going to cheap straight-to-dvd schlock, don't you dare try and create a decent plot..."

I hope for so much but I know its going to be poor

Agreed that 3d film is kinda lame.

In Avatar there where bits where 3d did work really well and I was rather surprised. For example, when the forest is on fire and all the ash is falling, its 3D. It just made the feel of the scene so much better.

However, 3D isnt worth the headache after leaving the cinema.

I'm young and i hate 3d, it's terrible, did anybody see clash of the titans, well i did, it was not a good film but in 3d it just sucked. don't ask me why i went, cause i sure as hell don't know why I saw it twice.

3d is just a waste of time imo.

I think my real problem with the 70 minute time limit is that like chimera_calvin said it just stinks of a terrible stright to dvd film.... if this is true then why both employing their best author to write the script and also employ such great actors to do the voice overs could of got anybody, tbh they could even have run a compertition and had members of the warhammer community do it (i know its a smurf but still being shown for 70 mins a s a spacemarine would be awesome).

I guess the point im trying to make is that they dont fudge this one up, if they get this right this could be the first in a long series of films that would probably be some of the best sci-fi available on the market, for years to come.

Commisar Agro - does me not liking 3D suggest to you that I'm old?. Surely your age makes no difference to your opinion of 3D films...?

Sure, many of us remember the dire attempts at 3D cinema over the years, and the huge disappointment they have caused, but I find your declaration of age a little... unnecessary.

Oh and this film is going straight to DVD - you knew that, right?
For anyone interested, GW comissioned other straight-to-video films way back when. Search Youtube for "Inquisitor". Then you'll realise why GW are so nervous about releasing more 40k films.

For what it's worth, I think UM will be the testing-the-water film. They set up the production studio especially for this film, so I doubt they're planning on fudging anything up - quite the opposite I would imagine.

If we all like UM (unlikely imo), or at least some of us like it (far more likely) then I'm sure we'll see a whole slew of stuff from Codex Pictures (see what they did there). Fingers crossed for a Horus epic.

Tek wrote:Commisar Agro - does me not liking 3D suggest to you that I'm old?. Surely your age makes no difference to your opinion of 3D films...?

Sure, many of us remember the dire attempts at 3D cinema over the years, and the huge disappointment they have caused, but I find your declaration of age a little... unnecessary.

Oh and this film is going straight to DVD - you knew that, right?
For anyone interested, GW comissioned other straight-to-video films way back when. Search Youtube for "Inquisitor". Then you'll realise why GW are so nervous about releasing more 40k films.

For what it's worth, I think UM will be the testing-the-water film. They set up the production studio especially for this film, so I doubt they're planning on fudging anything up - quite the opposite I would imagine.

If we all like UM (unlikely imo), or at least some of us like it (far more likely) then I'm sure we'll see a whole slew of stuff from Codex Pictures (see what they did there). Fingers crossed for a Horus epic.

I was never implying that your were old Tek, it's just that i know a lot of older people who belive that young people must love 3D, ipods, etc because they are the new "hip thing", I was not sure if this was a sterotype so i was just putting it out there. I'm sorry you took offense to my comment

i am aware that 3d has been attempted in the past, but with the new trend in movies having the option of being in 3D as well as tv (a waste of time imo) these individuals belive that it the popular thing among most teenagers which it probably is. I just like my movies/shows in good old 2d

I doubt it will be that crap since Dan Abnett is writing the screenplay, thats my reason for holding out hope anyways. And yeah 3D is a waste of time and isnt even new. Does anybody remmember when freddys dead came out, 3D didnt really catch on then so why should it now. And also Dan Abnett!!!!

Commissar Agro wrote:...I'm sorry you took offense to my comment

I didn't take offense mate, no worries. I just thought it was a little wierd. No biggy - my problem, not yours.

Mummbles - Dan Abnett wrote the screenplay. That counts for very little you know. Did you know Frank Miller wrote the screenplay for Robocop 2 and 3? Well how come they sucked so much?
Producers, Directors, ADs, Backers, Funders, IP owners and a million other people will all want to 'put their stamp' on a project like this. Meaning the screenplay -which is allegedly pretty ropey- gets long-abandoned as some jerk-off wants to show the more sensitive side to Logan Grimnar, or someone says "Hey, let's get that new Xtina tune in here, that'll bring in the crowds".

Ok, it's often not that severe, but mark my words there will be parts that make you go "WTF?"

Hey Tek, thanks for reading the first 14 words of my post and dissmising the next 8. Your obviously so much smarter than me because i would'nt be able to use google that well. And thanks for pointing out how the film industry works because i thought everyone in hollywood had such high ideals.

Azezel wrote:No-one watches Citizen Kane for the astounding visuals.

Wha...? What about the part where that sled flies out and it's almost like it's going to hit you in the face in 3D!

Anarchyinfluence wrote:
I didnt realise though that it was only going to be 70 minutes long.... i have abit of a hatered for any film under the 90mins mark as i feel on the whole they tend to be badly made.

You do know that most Disney animated features are around the 70-80 minute mark, right?
Your judgment is as bad as your spelling.

3D: For shots were things are thrown about and such? Yes. For Running Franticly to the door when the Pizza arives? No. Perhapse 3D Steam from the pizza, but any on screen food, 2 or 3 D, will make me Hungry!

Brother SRM wrote:You do know that most Disney animated features are around the 70-80 minute mark, right?
Your judgment is as bad as your spelling.

Im sorry if my opinion tweeked a nerve with you but it was just that an opinion.... probably a tad harsh to attack me on my spelling front but fair play if it made you feel better about yourself.

I also dont watch disney animated films, but my point is still valid in the case of films like meet the spartans, that was probably the worst thing i sat and watched for 60 minutes of my life.

Anarchy

MRMUMMBLES wrote:Hey Tek, thanks for reading the first 14 words of my post and dissmising the next 8. Your obviously so much smarter than me because i would'nt be able to use google that well. And thanks for pointing out how the film industry works because i thought everyone in hollywood had such high ideals.

Erm, OK. I hardly think your animosity is warranted or justified. And sorry, but I don't understnad what you mean by "...use Google that well". Does something in my post suggest I searched for something in particular on Google? If I offended you with my post, it was unintentional. If something I said has upset you, then likewise.

I was just sharing some knowledge to add to the conversation. I had no intention of starting an argument about a cartoon about toy soldiers.

Brother SRM wrote:

Anarchyinfluence wrote:
I didnt realise though that it was only going to be 70 minutes long.... i have abit of a hatered for any film under the 90mins mark as i feel on the whole they tend to be badly made.

You do know that most Disney animated features are around the 70-80 minute mark, right?
Your judgment is as bad as your spelling.

Good points Brother SRM, I think the length of this film will be it's strength, not it's weakness. There's a bunch of more pressing concerns fo' sho'.

I hate 3D as well. Only time I wear glasses is in the sun.

Azezel wrote:

There is a distinction between films as a storytelling medium and films as a spectacle. No-one watches Citizen Kane for the astounding visuals and no-one watches Avatar for the plot and characterisation.

Well, we all know we watch avatar to see blue boobi...THE STUNNING VISUALS! "eyes flick from left to right suspiciously*

Jaon wrote:

Azezel wrote:

There is a distinction between films as a storytelling medium and films as a spectacle. No-one watches Citizen Kane for the astounding visuals and no-one watches Avatar for the plot and characterisation.

Well, we all know we watch avatar to see blue boobi...THE STUNNING VISUALS! "eyes flick from left to right suspiciously*

I'm sorry I seem to have misplaced my HERESY seal, could someone lend me theirs?