Related Sections: Animation Interviews Movies News Top Stories
Why Pixar's Up could only have been a 3-D movie
Josh Hollander, director of 3-D production for Disney/Pixar's Up, told SCI FI Wire that he worked closely with director Pete Docter to integrate the use of 3-D into the film to enhance the narrative rather than simply to provide a cheap thrill for the audience.
"We really want to protect the integrity of our movie-making process and integrate 3-D in a subtle and nuanced way—an intentional way, if you get my meaning," Hollander said in an exclusive telephone interview last week. "So Pete's very savvy, and I don't think we altered the mono production drastically to make things play better in 3-D, mostly because we don't want to make a movie to sell 3-D, we want to use 3-D to tell our story. He envisioned what he wanted the story to be, he envisioned what he wanted the look to be, and then he, working together with us, envisioned how to use 3-D in that process."
In the film, Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) has spent years mourning his late wife, growing older, angrier and lonelier with each passing day he spends in the house in which they lived together. When he's threatened by developers, the 78-year-old former balloon salesman uses thousands of balloons to lift his house into the air ... and all the way to wilds of South America. Along for the ride—accidentally—is Russell (Jordan Nagai), an eager-beaver scout who's 70 years Carl's junior. And together they embark on the kind of adventure Carl and his wife long dreamed of experiencing.
Hollander and Up stereoscopic supervisor Bob Whitehill spoke exclusively to SCI FI Wire about the process of designing Up, in both two and three dimensions, as well as redesigning Toy Story and Toy Story 2 in 3-D for their theatrical re-release later this year. The following is an edited version of those interviews. Up opens May 29.
Talk about the differences in engineering a film in 3-D during production, such as you are with Up, as opposed to retrofitting 3-D on an existing work, like you're doing with Toy Story.
Hollander: Well, first of all, it's such a beautiful story, it's such a well-told story, it's such an emotional story, it's so visually engrossing that we really see 3-D—what we say, "just"—as just another tool in the toolbox for our filmmakers. We're able to envision early on how to use that tool to support the story we're telling.
On Toy Story, obviously, it was released 14 years ago, and obviously we didn't envision the use of 3-D in the telling of that story originally, so the challenge on the Toy Story project was just to go back through the movie, and Bob Whitehill sits with John Lasseter, and he talks through how to use 3-D to support that story. As a studio, we only use 3-D to support the emotional moments, to support the story, so we've gone back through the story to envision how to use it.
But on Up we can actually take a more proactive approach at that, so Bob sat with Pete Docter, the director, and the layout supervisor, who is kind of supervising the composition of the film in mono, to determine how to use 3-D in that way.
Bob, are there any specific examples of shots or sequences that you retooled to work better or more clearly for audiences seeing the films in 3-D?
Whitehill: Up unfolded so brilliantly for 3-D that we were very fortunate that there were really few instances of what I would call problems or discrepancies between the mono version and the 3-D version. For instance, they used a lens palette that had normal to wide lenses. Now, if you used long lenses, that collapses space and flattens out characters, and it can adversely affect the 3-D, but luckily they mostly avoided those. If you use lenses that are too wide, you're sort of using the lens to connote depth when you don't need to in 3-D, and it sort of exaggerates that feeling of depth. So a room will start to feel like a basketball gym.
Of course, on a 3-D film you want to have expanses—like big, open spaces, like on top of the tupuis [table-top mountains], for instance—to really feel that depth, and you can have the same stereo parameters at the distance of a waterfall on top of a tupui or a wall at the back of a room. The exact same parameters will feel very different because, naturally, visually, we're thinking that tupui waterfall is just that much further away from the wall of a room. That was another way that Up worked so well and sort of fell into 3-D very naturally and very gracefully, because of all of the amazing vistas. And the big battle at the end, the ground being so far away from the clouds. So we really were fortunate in many ways that the filming style of Up lent itself so well to 3-D that we had little or very few problems that you would want to change anything.
Would you say the challenges were the same on the Toy Story films?
Hollander: Yeah, I would. Although, again, it's a separate process from our filmmaking process. On Up, it was able to be integrated as part of the filmmaking process, and on Toy Story the films already exist and the story exists, the camera angles, so we're adding 3-D to an already established product, so it's not quite as organic as it is on an active production.
But with that said, we know these characters so well, we know these images so well, we can run the entire movie from memory, so it's more organic than we might think it would have been. We're not taking an old product and just "adding 3-D to it"; we're actually able to really figure out how to use 3-D, when to push it out, when to flatten it and how to support the emotional moments that we're all so familiar with and add a new dimension and make it worthwhile for people to come back to the theater to see it.
By Thogar at 1:38 PM ON 05/22/09
Will I have to wear glasses to see 3D? No sale.
Will I have to pay more to see 3D? No sale.
Until technology can bring a headache-free, headgear-free, extra-cost-free 3D movie to my local cineplex: Not interested.
Nobody in my family from the fifty-something (me) all the way down to the 9-year-old (youngest child) likes the headgear-wearing 3D. Oddly enough, I find it the least objectionable while my many children all absolutely HATE wearing those stupid glasses, some over their "real" glasses, for 2 hours.
"Up" looks wonderful, but we're just going to wait for the DVD. It's cheaper than being raped by the prices at the local cinema, there are no noisy people talking during the film, no cell phones going off and at home we can both pause it when we need a break and watch it multiple times for one price. Also, with a large television the virtual view in our living room is better than most of the seats in the cinema. There's hardly any reason to go waste money there any more.
By Pete at 1:45 PM ON 05/22/09
Thogar: have you seen a 3D movie in theater recently? You were sunglasses, essential - they look and feel like "real" glasses. It's not "headgear" at all. It's not at all like watching 3D at home.
The extra cost is a $1. It sounds like you are a grumpy move goer looking for a reason to justify not going to the movies. If you enjoy going to the movies, you'd go.
By TearEmUp at 2:53 PM ON 05/22/09
Maybe Thogar needs to strap a bunch of balloons to his house and have an adventure. He sounds a tad grumpy to me....
By Bewildered at 5:43 PM ON 05/22/09
One of my local cinemas (Rancho Mirage, CA) charges $3.50 extra for 3D films, a 40% surcharge on the adult matinee price (and 50% on the child ticket).
As this is a Pixar film, I'll pay the extra; for any other studio, I'd think twice.
By Thogar at 10:30 PM ON 05/22/09
Yes, Pete, the glasses used at the cinemas are different. Do *you* know how they work? The lenses are polarized and the polarization for each lens is set at 90 degree angles to each other. Then 2 images are projected using polarized lenses with angles matching the lenses in the glasses. I probably know more about the different 3D technologies than you'd imagine.
The fact remains it still isn't worth the bother. The theaters pulled this crap 50 years ago and the 2 color lenses weren't much worse than the polarized ones of today. It's a fad that'll die quicker than Thelma & Loise when they met the bottom of the canyon when headgear-free 3D hits the screens, if it lives that long.
I know my history and my technology and I am unimpressed with a technology that has been around for at least 20 years. Believe me, it's not new and if they say it's new it's just a minor adjustment to the old tech.
If you think it's great, then go. We'll go see a 2D movie that doesn't require anything except a seat until the day 3D can do the same. Until then, enjoy your fad.
By Pete at 11:56 AM ON 05/23/09
You didn't respond to what I said.
What you wear looks and feels exactly like sunglasses. They are a hard plastic. Your complaint was that they feel like headgear, and worse than regular glasses, which is not true. You babble off some stuff about *how* they work, which is distinct from your original complaint about how they feel. You are now shifting your targets. Your complaints end up sounds like unfounded whines, in light of that. It doesn't matter how much you know about the tech, it sounds like you haven't actually experienced it. I saw my first 3D movie in the theater since Jaws 3D when I went to go see Caroline, and was surprised at the advancement. I did not mind wearing these new glasses at all. I honestly doubt you've given it a try.
And you contradict yourself - you say this has been around for ages, and then dismiss it as a fad? Which is it - an age-old storytelling device, or a fad? They are mutually exclusive descriptions.
I'll see a 3D movie if it sounds good, not because it's 3D. You, however, will refuse to see a movie because it's 3D, even it is a terrific film. Now which of those positions seems rational?
By jdmimic at 7:31 PM ON 05/23/09
Sorry, Pete, he didn't contradit himself. Yes, it can be a fad and been around for decades at the same time. Hemlines go up and down with diferent fads, but the dresses don't disappear (gee, how long will it take for someone to digress on that comment?). 3D tech has been around for several decades, but every time it comes out, it lasts a few years then goes away because the novelty wears off quickly and the tech really hasn't been that good. My wife and daughter can't use them because it gives them headaches and doesn't work for them very well anyway. It works fine for me, but the glasses are a pain to wear over my regular glasses and are hardly as comfortable as real glasses. The only people who would say they are just like regular sunglasses are people who don't wear glasses commonly or are unfamiliar with the 3D glasses.
Oh, and the few theatres that can show the movies in 3D where i live charge an extra $4.50 for the privilege, hardly an insignificant amount and not worth the money to me, especially considering the annoyance the glasses cause me.
By faith at 1:50 AM ON 05/26/09
I would love to see this movie but I have severe vision problem and cannot view anything 3D without my eyes aching for days afterward. I was just a Disney's California Adventure I figured I'd try to watch the "bug's life" 3D movie there. I think my straining with the 3D glasses and the effects made my vision worse for days and hopefully not worse for life. It was my choice to try the movie however I cannot do this to myself again. I am so sad that I will have to miss out on "Up". Does anyone know if the movie will be available in a non 3D version. Will the video release on DVD be 3D or not? I love Disney movies!!!
By y3ny3n at 7:14 PM ON 06/19/09
Univeristy of Wikipedia alumni ftw!
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
y3ny3n:
Univeristy of Wikipedia alumni ftw!...More »