NO DUMMY: This Guy Married This Sex Shop Mannequin (VIDEO)
WATCH: 'It Was Like Nothing I've Ever Seen Before'
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 |
Priscilla Presley Goes From Army Brat To Rock Royalty
Lingerie Worker Claims She Was Fired For Being 'Too Hot'
PHOTOS: Views From The Empire State Building's Secret 103rd Floor
What Happened When Alex Kenjeev Paid His Student Loan in Cash
The Richest Woman in the World: How Gina Rinehart Earns her Billions
'Big Bang Theory' Star Officially Revealed As Gay
Preserve Your Budget by Freezing Foods -- Savings Experiment
Grieving Pit Bull Refused to Leave Dead Companion's Side
Chef Serves Up Own Genitals At Banquet (GRAPHIC PHOTOS)
Facebook's IPO Debacle, Day 3: Un-Friended and Dis-Liked on Wall Street
It's Legal To Shoot And Kill Animal Poachers, Indian State Orders
WATCH: 4-Year-Old Banned From School Pictures Over Hairstyle
Jennifer Lopez, Casper Smart TV Show: J.Lo to Star in Reality Series With Boyfriend (REPORT)
Vet Saves His Own Cat's Life After Car Accident
PHOTOS: Cindy Crawford Is Literally Breathtaking
Offensive Shirt Keeps Woman Off Plane
10 Poisonous Everyday Foods
Police Announce Arrest In Etan Patz Case
WATCH: Bloomberg Breaks Curfew With Helicopter, Upsets Neighbors
First Lady Michelle Obama: If I Could Be Someone Else, I'd Choose Beyonce
Kickstarter Campaign Reminds NYC Women: Toplessness Is Legal (NSFW)
Mom Outraged After Teacher's Aide Pulled Wrong Tooth From Son
Teen Covers Shot Friend With Blanket, Leaves Him To Die On Couch
Google Releases More Stunning 'Project Glass' Photos (And One Incredible Video)
25 Of The Most Obvious Headlines Ever
Man Divorces Wife After She Brings Home 550 Cats
DNA Study Solves Mystery Of Mysterious Mixed-Race People
PHOTOS: Celebs Go Bold For amFAR 2012
5 Suprising Findings From America's Latest Sex Study
Ellie Krupnick: I Went Ombre And My Mom Didn't Even Cry
Selena Gomez Is All Grown Up in Sexy 'Forbes' Photoshoot (PHOTOS)
Comments:
Add a comment
Friday 30 July
By j5kevin550
No movie EVER needs to be in 3D unless they can do it without screwing up the colors and do it without glasses. I didn't go see Avatar in theaters because it was in 3D, and the fact that the movie studios think it made so much was simply because of it being 3D is ridiculous. Any movie that's in 3D and I want to go see it, I will just go see a 2D showing. the technology hasn't improved any since it was created, it's a horrible fad that needs to die and never be resurrected
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
j5kevin550:
You've obviously never seen a modern 3D movie.
Modern 3D technology does NOT mess up the colors. It uses clear glasses, so it has full color quality. And the glasses are nothing like the paper glasses old 3D movies used. They're light and comfortable.
And technology has been developed for 3D without glasses. Although that technology is not yet widely available, it will be soon.
3D is NOT a fad. If it were a fad it would die. Stop making prejudiced comments.
Besides, if you don't want to see a movie in 3D, you don't have to. There are, and will remain, plenty of theaters that only show 3D movies in 2D.
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
It is ridiculous to say that movies shouldn't be in 3D because "movies have done just fine without 3D".
By that same logic, movies shouldn't be in color because movies have done just fine without color.
One thing that the people who are making these arguments against 3D don't realize is, these are the exact same things that people used to say about color film.
People used to say that for films to be artistic, they had to lack color. Now it's the same with 3D. I think that whenever a new technology is introduced that brings cinema to a new level of realism, these types of arguments tend to be made.
Being a self-taught expert with 3D, I know that 3D CAN be a powerful artistic tool if it's used properly (which is only true of a few of the 3D movies that have been made so far). ALL movies should be filmed in 3D -- for the same reason that all movies are filmed in color.
Besides, for the minority of people who don't want to see movies in 3D, they don't have to. There are, and will remain, plenty of theaters that only show 3D movies in 2D.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Rusty
How's this for a 3-D adult film? Ron Jeremy, Darth Vader, Bozo the Clown, Ebony Ayes, Seka, Raven, and Ginger Lynn get together for an orgy on the bow of RMS Titanic! Can you imagine that bunch trying to fit in with that stodgy coterie of Victorian hypocrites? (Bill Paxton could dredge up Darth's rusted helmet from the depths some eighty years later.)
Reply
Friday 30 July
By autonimous
If I have to do something other than show up, then it is too much of a pain in the rump to do. I will not spend the money to watch a 3d flick, and if that is the only way you are releasing it then count on me to never to spend any sort of money on it.
Why do they not concentrate on quality of movie, not gimmicks and special effects? Is the story so pathetic that this is the only way to make money?
Take a refresher course and watch The Grapes Of Wrath or 12 Angry Men... and of course the original Captains Courageous.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Marcy
Too many movies are being made in 3-D. They don't understand that there are a lot of people that cannot watch 3-D movies without getting sick or having a seizure. So those people who would love to see the movie are being denied just because it is in 3-D (and generally the entire family). Also, people do not realize that those wonderful 3-D glasses don't get cleaned that good from one film to the next. Like from one person to the next. Eck!
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
Marcy:
Only a tiny percentage of people are that way. And they should just watch the movie in 2D. There are, and will remain, plenty of theaters that only show 3D movies in 2D.
There is no good reason at all for a movie not to be filmed in 3D.
Friday 30 July
By Cliff
the comment about causing eye problems is false and has been proven false. yes there have been cases of folks who have seen some older styled 3-d and have had issues with their sight afterwards, but it wasn't the 3-d movie that caused it but an eye problem they had prior that the 3-d movie affected.
also depending on the technique used for the 3-d imaging asffects the outcome of the look. I have astigmatism and have no problem viewing 3-d movies.
older styled 3-d (using blue/red glasses) do affect the color but that is only because it only uses a single focal point for the imagery and that is why there are the 2 color lenses. modern 3-d uses a varient of polorized lenses - either smoke colored or clear -- that direct only a part of what is viewed on the screen into each eye. it can be a little disconcerting at first to view since you need to train yourself to turn your head instead of moving your eyes to see items on the side of the screens
Reply
Saturday 31 July
By Matthew Barich
Cliff:
Incorrect.
The reason that colored glasses mess up the colors is, well, the glasses' lenses are colored. The focal point has nothing to do with it.
All polarized lenses are clear. There is no such thing as smoke colored lenses.
Modern 3D uses either polarized glasses or shutter glasses -- and NEITHER of those display only a part of the screen to each eye. Both of those technologies overlay the left and right eye images on top of each other, and filter out the other eye's image. You do NOT have to move your head to see items on the side of the screen.
Friday 30 July
By John F.C. Taylor
I'd favor 2D over 3D just because I already wear glasses. Those 3D specs are damn difficult to use if you wear glasses. I might change my mind if they come up with clip-ons that'll fit over regular glasses. Even so, I agree with the majority. Just too many 3D movies being made these days.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Matthew Barich
John F.C. Taylor:
I've said this many times before and I'll continue to say it:
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE A MOVIE IN 3D, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. There are, and will remain, plenty of theaters that only show 3D movies in 2D.
Saturday 31 July
By Joseph
Sorry, but *I* wear glasses and I find the current crop of 3-D movies to be much easier to watch than the older ones (or the current films that use the old blue-red or green-red paper glasses for the DVD release). The new 3-D glasses pose no real problem for me when wearing them over my regular glasses (and, incidentally, my prescription inevitably requires the lenses in my glasses to be pretty damn thick). Just because you (and other people) have a problem with watching 3-D movies does NOT entitle you (or them) to project your problems on those of us who may be in similar straits but don't have those problems or woes.
Friday 30 July
By Russ
Yes, too many films are being shown in 3D. This allows theaters to charge extra each time for 3D glasses that you cannot reuse. At least that is with Regal Theaters anyway. That to me is a rip-off.
Reply
Friday 30 July
By Ron
If all 3D / Imax films were as good as Polar Express then 3D would be a total success. Over the past couple of years we have gone to see 3 or 4 3D movies and were in at least 2 cases very disappointed. For instance Toy Story 3. The 3D effects were minimal and not worth the extra ticket price. On top of the price the hassle of wearing those 3D glasses is only worth it when the movie has great effects. Unless a movie comes highly recommended in 3D in the future I will take a pass. 2D is just fine by me. As far as getting a 3D T.V. Forgetaboutit.
Reply
Saturday 31 July
By Tony
3-D may be a little more expensive.. but it is the way of the future..people were also relcutant about movies with sound back in the 1920's and now look where we are today... things change over time.. embrace the change.. its what makes life interesting...its what makes the human race grow.
Reply
Saturday 31 July
By DAGwyn
There's no good reason that all major motion pictures shouldn't be filmed in 3D (stereoscopic), especially computer-generated animation which is already based on views of 3D solid models. If you don't want to view them in 3D just reproduce one of the two views (originally recorded for left or right eye).
We saw the same sort of Luddite response when stereophonic sound was introduced. The analogy is very close, and if the market is allowed to function we will see whether customers prefer the improved realism of 3D viewing. If they do, movies that weren't filmed in 3D will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Reply
Saturday 31 July
By Josh
I have a read a lot of these comments and I agree with the majority, there are too many "up-converted" movies coming out to theaters. As said above, the only movies that are truly 3D are Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon. The rest of the movies claiming to be in 3D are all converted after filming in 2D. I wish movie companies and studios did not jump the gun and release all of these movies in converted 3D. Avatar did wow audiences but that's because it was filmed in 3D. And since it did so well, these comapnies wanted to jump on the bandwagon and release some movies in converted 3D. I'll admit, seeing a 3D movie is cool, it may not be all the way 3D, but it is sweet. But, in reality, the studios just want more money. 3D has even become a reality in our homes with 3D tvs. The downside is that the 3D glasses are around $200 a piece. For the vast majority of people, the glasses and tvs are way too much. There are only very few movies out in 3D, so it's not worth it at this time. However, I do see in the next 5 to 10 years, 3D will catch on. The 3D now is not the 3D that will be for the future. It just takes time. I usually see the 2D version first, cause it easier to feel and understand the movie that way. 3D is the different view of the movie that would be fun to see after the 2D version.
Reply
Saturday 31 July
By Ryan
3d is the new era which will be just another step in the up the technology chain just as blu ray or high definition was. the next step is virtual reality or 4d so those that hate 3d you better start getting used to it and to all others enjoy it why you can. everyone can just grow up and learn when to GET OVER IT. ya you like your 2d but dont get all pissy and try to stop them from making more d films cause first of all it wont work and 2nd your just dumb
Reply