Kyle Dyer Recovering After Dog Bite On Face During Segment
Our friends over at FilmDrunk have the trailer for "Yogi Bear." The film, which is slated for a Christmas release, is a mix of live action and CGI and stars the voices of Dan Aykroyd as Yogi and Justin Timberlake as Boo Boo. Because "Avatar" made a heckuva lot of money, Yogi Bear will be released in 3-D.
You obviously can't get the 3-D effect from watching a trailer on your computer, but something still struck us when we took a look: 3-D might be a good medium to introduce an exotic place like Pandora, but is it really necessary for a movie set in Jellystone Park? After all, that is a location most of us have, more or less, already been to.
And do we really need Yogi, and all of his self-proclaimed bear intellect, all up in our grill?
Yes, 3-D can be pretty cool in certain settings. However, like fine china, might it be best used only for special occasions?
| Yes -- 2-D usually works just fine, thank you | |
|---|---|
| No -- don't hate, Luddite |
PHOTO: Miley Cyrus Wears Racy Garter Tights
The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
PHOTOS: Anti-Gay Protesters Getting Pwned
Can You Guess This Famous Face?
Boss Indifferent To My Suicidal Impulse, Says Stock Trader Who Lost Millions
The Best And Worst Burgers
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
Katy Perry Divorce: With No Prenup How Much Will Russell Walk Away With?
Powell 911 Call Released: Cops Declare Investigation Of Missing Mom A Murder Case
It's Pink!
Savings Experiment: Tissues vs. Toilet Paper
Woolly Mammoth Allegedly Caught On Video In Siberia
Hiroshi Ishiguro's android mannequin creeps out Japanese shoppers (video)
James Sturm Boycotts 'The Avengers' Film over Marvel's Treatment of Jack Kirby
PHOTOS: Massive Whale Shark Reeled Into Harbor
Dozens Of D.C. Workers May Lose Jobs Over Alleged Unemployment Fraud
Mike 'The Situation' Sorrentino To Housemates: Stop Hinting I'm Gay
WATCH: This Is Your Body On Ramen
WATCH: Rose McGowan, Christie Brinkley & Minka Kelly Stumble On Runway
Steve Jobs FBI File Reveals Bomb Threat, 'Tendency To Distort Reality' And More
WATCH: JFK Intern Discusses Sordid Details Of Affair
10 States Receive Waivers From No Child Left Behind Law
Third Photo Rejected By Yearbook, Editors Choose For Her
WATCH: 7-Year-Old Girl Kicks And Screams Out Kidnapping At Walmart
U.S. Marines Posing With Symbol Resembling Nazi Logo 'Not Acceptable'
Santorum Sweeps Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Embarrassing Romney
Valentine's Day: Celebs Show Us How To Wear Lingerie (PHOTOS)
The Oldest Found Work Of Art Ever!
Women Of A Certain Age With Hair Of A Certain Length
THE HUNGER BLOGS: A Secret World of Teenage 'Thinspiration'
Post 50 Celebrity Dream Homes on the Market (PHOTOS)
Is This The Legendary Worm Monster Of Iceland?
Comments:
Add a comment
Thursday 29 July
By Steven S
IM SICK OF ALL THESE MOVIES IN 3D AND MOST OF THEM SUCK. YOGI BEAR WASNT THAT BRIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE SHOULD OF DIED YEARS AGO.
Reply
Saturday 31 July
By Faith
My kids highly DISLIKE 3D movies. So my family chooses to see the movies in the NON 3D versions.
Friday 30 July
By antisocialfatman
I have two things to say to this.
The first is, how is Pandora any different to Jellystone Park? Pandora was a very generic, Earth-like forest. Only in the most superficial ways was it different, and those minor elements did not make the 3D any more justifiable.
The second is, no. Because very few are actually being SHOT in 3D. Most (Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland to name just two) are shot in 2D and then up-converted afterwards, which is why the 3D looks so terrible.
When a film is actually SHOT in 3D (Avatar, How to train your Dragon), it inherently looks better. We do not need fewer films to be shot in 3D - we need the opposite. We need fewer films to be shot in 2D, if they're just going to be up-converted into 3D afterwards and look terrible.
For the record, I am anti-3D. It is proven to cause eye problems and some o' them sciencey types are speculating about brain problems. I don't want to go near it. BUT films being SHOT in 3D is not the problem, it's the terrible post-filming conversion. And until audiences realise the difference, we aren't going to see an end to it.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Josie
It finally makes sense on why so many movies that claim to be 3D have only like 3 scenes with 3D effects. I've been turned off by these multiple movies claiming to be 3D but actually aren't. I went to see The Last Air Bender and I kid you not I spent most of the movie with my glasses off and watched the movie fine. Only thing was I paid extra and felt totally ripped off. No more 3D for me unless highly recommended by friends.
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
antisocialfatman:
You should NOT be against 3D -- only against poorly-done 2D to 3D conversions.
Filming a movie in 2D and then converting it to 3D is like filming a movie in grayscale and then converting it to color. (Actually, the former is even more difficult.)
If a new movie is filmed in 2D and then converted to 3D, that is an indication that the 3D with that movie is being done just to make money.
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
antisocialfatman:
You should NOT be against 3D -- only against poorly-done 2D to 3D conversions.
Filming a movie in 2D and then converting it to 3D is like filming a movie in grayscale and then converting it to color. (Actually, the former is even more difficult.)
If a new movie is filmed in 2D and then converted to 3D, that is an indication that the 3D with that movie is being done just to make money.
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
Sorry for posting twice -- this comments system has a problem where it doesn't update right away.
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
It sometimes updates right away, and sometimes doesn't post at all. This is confusing.
Friday 30 July
By Annoyed
I find 3-D movies overrated and oh so lame. I had to walk out of the movie, Avatar, because I found myself too bored to remain in my seat without falling asleep. It wasn't quite something I wanted to watch. And everyone seemed to just love it. I thought it was stupid. Unfortunately, I was drug along to it and was it terrible! I hate most 3-D movies and I specially hated that one.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By DICK HEAD
Hey Boo Boo ......
Friday 30 July
By alfredschrader
Pandora's - can't say it.
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
Annoyed:
OK, but Avatar actually was in some ways a mediocre example of 3D. For one thing, the movie itself wasn't terrific, and for another thing, the 3D was not as good as it could have been.
3D can be fantastic IF both the movie itself and the 3D are well done.
Saturday 31 July
By eliza
3D Movies MAKE ME SICK. I simply can't watch them. And it doesn't make any difference if it was shot in 2D and then converted or shot in 3D. I walked out of Avatar after only 30 minutes because I was going to barf. I have the same problem with all the jittery movies made with those hand-held camera effects.
Saturday 31 July
By fallingaway229
youre an idiot... Avatar was great!
Friday 30 July
By Wally Conger
For those of us who suffer with depth-perception problems or have a severe astigmatism, 3D's a pain in the butt.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Idaho Boy Dave
3D is the direction all things are going. Like computers, the push to do things in 3D are forcing the technology to catch up with it, and it drives the prices of such downward. It will also push them to do the technology better, and the problems a lot of people like you experience will go away. As such, as 3D TVs are coming out, more will be coming as time progresses, while they become cheaper and cheaper yet better and better technology. It *should* reach a point where movies are no different to people with depth perception and sight problems, than anything else. For these reasons, IMHO, _ALL_ movies should be shot in 3D, and the ticket prices shouldn't be any higher. ...which is exactly what I expect will happen in about 5 to 10 years. True, some movies are not "spectacular" enough to have the hype of being shot in 3D, but that's not the point. **And as a side note** The problem with actresses being pushed to be disgustingly thin is because of the problem of translation of 3D objects (like waistlines) into 2D mediums; without depth, they look bigger. As 3D catches on more and more, the disgusting "walking skeletons" fad will hopefully go away.
Saturday 31 July
By eliza
Actually, the 30 minutes I saw of Avatar before I had to leave due to the nausea caued by the 3D effects - was terrible. The script was bad, the acting absolutely over-the-top dreadful. I would have stayed anyway, to see the pretty floaty things and weird creatures because I like fantasy stories and pretty things, and so I could know what all the fuss was about. But I got sick from the 3D and had to leave. My husband didn't get sick but he was also incredibly bored by the bad acting, bad directing, poor script, shallow story. I'm tired of bad films I am supposed to like because they threw in a new sort of special effect. I really prefer good writing, good acting, good characterization, to fancy effects. Guess I'm old fashioned.
Friday 30 July
By Rusty
Imagine Yogi was blasted in the head with a 12 gauge by the Ranger and Boo Boo was decapitated -- again, by the frustrated Ranger -- with a samurai sword! And all of this carnage was in response to the mere pilfering of a couple of picnic baskets!!! Call it "Justice in Jellystone," and end it with Yogi's carcass dangling by his green tie from the park's entrance. "he's deader than the average bear!" All the little kids in the theater would be crying!
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Draconian
3-D might be 'more' popular with Adult Films.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Learical
One of my grandsons, age 3, has an under-developed eye. The five year old has strabismus. These movies cause many people headaches. I don't understand why movie makers want to produce films that can hurt people, both monetarily and physically. Or is it just me??
Reply