If The Land Before Time came out in 3D

pokeplayer984 · **on:** July 20, 2010, 11:58:53 PM

3D has become all the rage in "Creating A Movie for Theaters" these days. So, if Universal decided to take the original The Land Before Time movie and make it 3D, would you go see that?

Now, I understand that 3D is nothing more than a fad that EVERY Director/Producer is pushing down our throats, trying to show us that it's the way of the future. It would be nice to see how much The Land Before Time would be graphically improved by it, but do I really want that? I don't know to be honest. I've got mixed feelings on it.

Would I see it in the theaters if it really happened? Yes, and I would go for the 3D. However, I would only do it for the experience, and nothing more.

What about you guys? Would you go see it if it did happen? In fact, do you want it to happen? Let's discuss.

See ya later!

Killua · **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2010, 12:14:09 AM

Hmm, maybe. I don't think it would really work in 3D, but I couldn't pass up seeing LBT in theaters. But the format of cel animation doesn't really lend itself to 3D.

Nick22 · **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2010, 12:21:46 AM

3D is nothing more than a gimmick. a good story doesn't need 3d, imo. Most stories in 3d, in fact, flat out stink..see the upcoming Cats and Dogs 2 or Step Up 3d.

Animeboye · **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2010, 12:27:11 AM

I would definitely, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt...NOT see Land Before Time in 3D!

Like I said in a previous topic, 3D does not make a movie better. It doesn't add anything to the movie going experience. "Ohh, it looks like stuff is flying at me, it's so amazing!!!!1111". What I find interesting is that most people today don't even know that 3D has actually been around since the 50's. Except back then, 3D was usually only used for comics. It wasn't until, I think about the 70's when they started using it in movies. And even then it didn't last too long.

Now as for LBT getting the 3D treatment...why? I don't think LBT needs 3D. It got where it is by being a generally good movie. Unless the 3D adds more depth to the story and characters, then it's not necessary. Not to mention that it wasn't even filmed in 3D so converting it to 3D would make for a total disaster. Just take a look at all the movies being released that were originally intended to be 2D only but were then converted into 3D.

So no I don't think Land Before Time needs the 3D "treatment". It's good enough as is.

Cancerian Tiger · **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2010, 12:39:23 AM

I would see it for the very sole purpose of supporting LBT. Otherwise, in my opinion, 3D is overrated and an excuse for theatres to charge more for movie tickets that are already outrageous in price.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2010, 03:57:00 AM

No. 3D's a gimick and adds absolutely nothing. Besides which, 3D hurts my frikkin eyes!!!!! They do eventually adjust, but its a painful trip that I would rather not go on, and as the result I miss out on most of the early scenes of films made in 3D.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2010, 04:52:33 AM

Nope. I wouldn't. Now if they made a new sequel and it was ONLY out in 3D then yes, I'd have to see it. But I hate 3D and I really don't want to be forced to watch it.

Malte279 · **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2010, 05:24:47 AM

If it did come out I would watch it. To turn LBT into a 3D movie additional drawings would have to be made and I suppose it would be more likely than not that parts would be added. There are some scenes in LBT which I think might look interesting in 3D.
I am not a particular fan of 3D technique, but neither do I see it with the extreme hatred expressed by many here to the point that they wouldn't watch it out of principle. Like you I focus more on plot than on animation (though even a decent plot can be presented in a poor manner (personally I consider LBT 8 an example for that)) but I don't think a 3D version of LBT would be a loss and therefore something to be actively dreaded.

Petrie. · **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2010, 07:59:22 AM

3D spooks me.

I'll get motion sick over a lot of movement too so 3D stuff in any film never works for me.

Sky · **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2010, 12:51:36 PM

Wait, are we speaking of 3D with these glasses or a completely 3D animated movie? :huh:
Either way, I would watch it. Probably not in theaters, but on DVD.

Pikkutassu · **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2010, 01:16:30 PM

I would go see it, but not because of 3D.

Mumbling · **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2010, 01:20:20 PM

I'd go see it, only for the fact that it is the land before time

Kor · **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2010, 01:53:21 PM

3d in movies goes way way back. One of the 3 stooges shorts was shot in 3d, forgot which one. Most of today's folks likely do not know how old 3d is.

Clawandfang · **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2010, 02:39:41 PM

Sure I would. People today see 3D in films the way I guess people once saw colour in films (And maybe even sound, or indeed just moving images?). You don't need 3D, colour, sound, or even images to tell a story, it's perfectly true, but that doesn't mean they don't have their place. 3D isn't any different from those other examples in my opinion. It's not a "gimmick", it's just bringing the picture quality closer to reality (the problem, I suspect, is the unfortunately well-founded belief that sometimes 3D causes focus to shift from plot to eye-candy, which isn't good, but isn't the fault of 3D technology itself).
EDIT:

Quote from: Sky,Jul 21 2010 on 05:51 PM

Wait, are we speaking of 3D with these glasses or a completely 3D animated movie?

Does the technology for 3D without special eyewear even commercially exist for film?

Jasper · **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2010, 03:12:22 PM

Quote from: Clawandfang,Jul 21 2010 on 01:39 PM

Sure I would. People today see 3D in films the way I guess people once saw colour in films (And maybe even sound, or indeed just moving images?). You don't need 3D, colour, sound, or even images to tell a story, it's perfectly true, but that doesn't mean they don't have their place. 3D isn't any different from those other examples in my opinion. It's not a "gimmick", it's just bringing the picture quality closer to reality (the problem, I suspect, is the unfortunately well-founded belief that sometimes 3D causes focus to shift from plot to eye-candy, which isn't good, but isn't the fault of 3D technology itself).
EDIT:
Quote from: Sky,Jul 21 2010 on 05:51 PM
Wait, are we speaking of 3D with these glasses or a completely 3D animated movie?
Does the technology for 3D without special eyewear even commercially exist for film?

I have movie that was made in 1982 that was released in theaters and DVD in 3D.

Killua · **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2010, 03:45:19 PM

I think people don't realize that today's 3D is completely different from the red-and-blue glasses 3D technology of yesterday. They are not the same thing.

The 3D nowadays is much more advanced and much less of a gimmick. I'm not saying that many studios don't just tack it on as an aside to make more money, but a movie designed for 3D like Avatar really showcases that it can be quite awesome if done correctly.

WeirdRaptor · **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2010, 04:29:06 PM

Too bad Avatar was a subpar film in and of itself. And no, its just as much of a gimmick as ever. Does 3D effect the writing? No. Does it effect how much a person enjoys a movie? Hell no. Oh, and even today's 3D hurts my eyes.

Malte279 · **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2010, 04:55:41 PM

Quote

Does it effect how much a person enjoys a movie? Hell no. Oh, and even today's 3D hurts my eyes

That depends on the person. To me it doesn't make a major difference (neither positive nor negative), but a good number of people I know have been quite impressed with the 3D animation. If the reactions to 3D were so entirely negative without any effect of luring more people to the cinemas I don't reckon they would take the additional costs for 3D animation.

Kor · **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2010, 05:17:33 PM

I do wonder if it's here for good or a fad. It was a fad in the 50's and 70's.

Animeboye · **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2010, 06:53:33 PM

Quote from: Killua,Jul 21 2010 on 02:45 PM

I think people don't realize that today's 3D is completely different from the red-and-blue glasses 3D technology of yesterday. They are not the same thing.

The 3D nowadays is much more advanced and much less of a gimmick. I'm not saying that many studios don't just tack it on as an aside to make more money, but a movie designed for 3D like Avatar really showcases that it can be quite awesome if done correctly.

So as long as the 3D is good, then it doesn't matter if a film has a painfully generic story, cliched characters, and a plot even older than our grandparents? I liked Avatar for what it was: Eye candy. But that did not save the movie. Ever hear the expression "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig"?

Someone before me mentioned that we didn't need color or sound to help tell a story. Well I strongly disagree. In the case of such movies as Land Before Time, Wizard of Oz, and Willy Wonka(the original) to name just a few, the colors and sounds helped to bring these movies to life and to help set the mood for these films. Take Wizard of Oz for example: Would any of us have felt as terrified by the Wicked Witch if the entire film was shot in only black and white? ...Probably not. Would we have found Oz as magical and beautiful if the movie was only in black and white? Doubt it. Color does help to tell a story, in more ways than we think. 3D however, does not help to tell a story in any way. "Oh but 3D makes the movie SOOO realistic!!!" ...No it doesn't. Movies are meant to be fiction. Fiction. As in not real. Not likely to happen in real life. Another problem is that 3D doesn't work for every movie out there. Only for a very small minority of movies does it work for. Imagine if they did Where the Wild Things Are or Precious in 3D. Those movies would look like crap.