Comments (0) 2D Animation, Animation, Cars, Disney, Disney Digital 3D, News, Pete Docter, Pixar, Pixar Employees, UP

UP Enters The Third Dimension

We do know (or at least one does hope the other knows), that Pixar’s 2009 release, UP, directed by Pete Docter, is going to be a 3D animated film. Pixar aren’t going to 2D, yet. In addition to this,, reporting from ShoWest, said that Disney have announced that the film will also be exhibited in 3-D. It seems it will go hand-in-hand with the three Toy Story releases over 2009-2010, that will also be in 3-D.

However, Peter Sciretta from /Film, does make a very good point. Is Disney having a negative influence on Pixar? He says:

And I’ve always loved Pixar’s view on sequels and 3D. Things like “Sequels are not part of our business model” and “We’ll only do 3D if the story compliments it” have been said many times in many interviews. 

Then last year it was announced that the Bay-area based animation studio would be making a third Toy Story film. And then, in January, Disney made the big announcement that it would be released in Digital Disney 3D following the rerelease of the original two films, which would be remastered for three dimensional viewing.

Add this onto the rumours that Disney•Pixar are going to make a Cars 2 and are eyeing a 2011 release date, and it just doesn’t sound like Pixar at all. Is it really necessary for the unstoppable duo to release these films in 3-D? I’ve never actually seen a film in 3-D, but it really just sounds like a cheap gimmick. But please, correct me if I am wrong. Leave a comment below and share your opinion.

0 Responses to UP Enters The Third Dimension

  1. Anonymous says:

    I’ve only seen one film in 3D and that was last year’s Beowulf. Being a CG film and being 3D certainly heightened the suspension of disbelief and made me feel like I was in that world.

    Now imagine watching a Pixar film, with all its artistry and technical marvel, being able to experience it even further by watching it in 3D. Sure, its gimmicky but it still adds to the viewing experience (especially in theaters).

    Its not something that will make the film better but its another cool way to watch it.


  2. Anonymous says:

    I’ve seen “Disney Digital 3D” before (Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons). Both were quite enjoyable.

    I agree that Cars 2 seems fairly unneccasry, especially considering the fact this most people find one of Pixar’s weaker filmsh, but I have no problem with re-release of the Toy Story movies in 3D. As Arnaldo has said, the idea of the artistiy of Pixar in 3D sounds quite exciting.

  3. martini833 says:

    Ok, here’s how I see it.

    Cars 2- Unnecesary, even though I love Cars (I still have lingering thoughts of how much I hated it before I actually saw it) Cars seems wrapped up and all that I will believe is a brand new short. The only excuse for a Cars 2 is if Pixar is just re-doing, re-making Cars fixing the errors of the first, or using new characters in the same Cars world, but even that is extremely unlikely. If it does happen, I trust it’s for a good reason although I see The Incredibles and Monsters, Inc. as much more suitable for a sequel.

    3D in Pixar films- As long as it doesn’t distract then go ahead. I like the idea, plus what kind of non-Pixar fan would pay to see Toy Story in theatres without any extra incentives. I’m betting they’ll have a new short in front of it, or Knick Knack (in it’s original 3D) which would be pretty cool. I see why Up is going to be in 3D, it’s an adventure film and from what we’ve heard, 3D sounds really awesome for this epic, and matches the proportions.

    So basicaly I’m all for everything mentioned above, if done carefully, but still don’t believe such rumors as Cars 2 and such.

  4. Anonymous says:

    3-D is actually a lot better than it used to be. Most of it is like looking through a window, with some being parts that seem to reach out of the screen. The red and blue glasses were phased out, giving it a more realisitic look to it.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Story, story, story – As long as the story is good then bring on the 3D and the sequels. Look how good Toy Story 2 was. I trust PIXAR until they give me a reason not to.

  6. Anonymous says:

    My main trouble with 3D: technology improvements or not, it still makes my eyes hurt so much that within about ten minutes, I can’t focus at all. 3D films have actively kept me out of theaters. I absolutely loathe this trend and I’m not looking forward to getting shut out of the movie-going experience just because my eyes happen to be a little wonky. :

  7. Westendrache says:

    I had an idea yesterday, when I was on the toilet, which is where many of my craziest subconscious theories get noticed by my conscious mind (must be the fumes). Anyway, for whatever reason, I was thinking of the image of ‘Up’ in this article, and of the very sparse “plot summary” we have…
    What if the young park ranger and the old guy are actually the same person, the old man recreating a past he knows he can’t experience again, or one he would have liked to experience but never did, full of adventures like monster-hunting. And by the end of the film, he realizes that maybe being old isn’t all that bad in some ways, and that he doesn’t need young bones to have adventures (though they may be of a different kind), and he wakes up and is less Scrooge-y.
    Or maybe the whole film is structured (I’m thinking of the rumours that it will be sad/bitter-sweet) in a way resembling birth/death/re-birth, and in the end, when the old guy has finally had the adventures he always wanted to have, he dies peacefully.
    Hm, quite a downer. Crazy fumes ;).

  8. Anonymous says:

    John Lasseter has always been interested in 3-D, but has felt that if you are going to do a 3-D film you have to do it right. The technology has to be there (which it is), and you have to make the movie 3-D from the beginning. The layout, the editing, the depth cues, even color palette all have to be made with 3-D in mind.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I wish folks would give “Cars 2” a chance. Maybe the sequel was already being planned back when the first film was in development. And maybe the filmmakers decided to save the really, really good “Cars” stuff for the sequel, which weakened the first film but will make the second one much stronger. At this point, we just don’t know. Hence, until we get more detailed info about it, I’m going to keep an open mind about “Cars 2.”

  10. Anonymous says:

    3D is nowhere near a gimmick. The new Digital 3D format that uses DLP projectors is perhaps the most immersive film experience I’ve ever had. I saw Meet the Robinsons in 3D and it was nothing short of breathtaking. There’s no eye strain, no ghosting of the image, everything is crystal clear, full color, hyper-realistic 3D. It’s indescribable.

    I couldn’t be more excited to see Pixar films in 3D. Pixar type CGI animation IS 3D. It’s designed in 3D, it’s animated in 3D, etc. To express it in 2D doesn’t do their work justice. Just wait until you see one of the Pixar movies released in 3D, and you’ll be BEGGING for more… trust me on this.

    I think even if it was Disney’s idea to “push” Pixar into doing 3D, once they see their own work in 3D on the big screen, they’ll be wondering why they were desperately pushing for it in the first place (and that’s if any of them really ever had any opposition to it).

    It’s not all that complicated to convert prevous pixar films to 3D either, but there are definitely things that would need adjustment. However, most of the films are already in a “ready” state. All they need to do is add an additional “virtual camera” in the original 3D graphics, and re-render the dual-eye-images. Some scenes may need some tweaking for depth and stuff, but really, compared to making a whole new film, this isn’t nearly as time/effort intensive.

    Either way, I’m SOOOOOO psyched about the move to 3D. Once you go 3D, you’re going to be disappointed to ever see a film in 2D again. Take my word for it. It’s like the difference between reality and a photograph. You can’t imagine the depth and immersion that 3D would bring to film, but ESPECIALLY Pixar.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I do think 3d is a gimmick. but its a very cool gimmick. being a gimmick doesn’t have to automatically be bad. it just means it’ll attract more attention. nothing wrong with that. I saw meet the Robinson’s and nightmare before Christmas in 3d and it was amazing, and very natural looking.

    3d is great for movies, so long as the characters don’t act like their aware of it by putting their hands out into the camera and what not. I personally would see the re release of the Toy Story 1 and 2 even without 3d, but I’m even more excited now that I know it’ll be in 3d. its a way to make my fav movies feel fresh again. I think I’ll try to see it in a 2d theatre as well though, just for the heck of it.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Gimmick almost always has a negative connotation in our vernacular. It’s a word used to decsribe something that’s not a “real” enhancement of something.

    3D, when used in the fashion that it would be used on Pixar films, is not a gimmick, it’s a genuinely innovative and incredible enhancement that will make the film that much more immersive. The Pixar style of animation lends itself so perfectly to this technology, that it’s almost silly not to use it.

Join the Discussion!