Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 will NOT be in 3D

Rodney 31 Comments

Looks like the anticpated first chapter of the last book adaptation of Harry Potter will be screened in old fashioned traditional format as the 3D conversion is not going to be done in time.

But what’s taking them? That’s right. Its not looking up to snuff and can’t be fixed in time for the release.

Empire reports:

Warner Bros., long the champion of and big believer in 3D, has announced that one of the studio’s biggest new releases is ditching the third dimension. Yes, Part One of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will indeed arrive without the need for special glasses.

“We will not have a completed 3D version of the film within our release date window,” adding “despite everyone’s best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality,” the company announced in a press release picked up by The Playlist. “We do not want to disappoint fans who have long-anticipated the conclusion of this extraordinary journey.”

Now I read what they are saying, but what I am hearing is that they don’t like the quality, so they are not doing it. Clash of the Titans was torn a new one over its sloppy 3D effects, and WB is likely driven to a standard of quality that this film has yet to achieve.

I appreciate that they are pushing for better quality instead of spoon feeding us 3D versions because they know we will pay. This move sounds like they are trying their best for quality and wont sacrifice that to put out the film in 3D for its November 19th release date.

Yes, they have a deadline to hit, but it sounds more like they wont be offering it up unless the quality of 3D post conversion is up to par, which they didn’t say they CAN’T do, but rather they couldn’t do it at an acceptable quality in time for their release date.

To quote Wesley in the Princess Bride in regards to Buttercup saying they would not survive the fire swamp:

“Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”

And that sticks with me when I think of the Post3D debate. People are so against it like some plague that infests Hollywood (other blind extremes say 3D alone is the plague) but that isn’t to say they should give up. Did they give up with CGI when it stood out like Roger Rabit on the screen? Now we have Avatar.

I still have faith that post conversion 3d is possible, just that in these early days of the technique, they haven’t found a way to do it so it looks as good as Real 3D filmed on 3D cameras.

But with this last chapter(s) of Harry Potter not being in 3D? I can accept that because the previous 6 films were not. Not to say it wouldn’t be cool, but I can live without it for this franchise.

Of course this could all be marketing genius and a ploy to re-release the film in 3D just ahead of Part 2 to double dip on the fanbase when Part 2 inevitably does come out in 3D.

About Rodney

View all posts by Rodney →

You may like these posts

  • becca

    good im starting to hate 3D movies cuz the movie theater in my town wont get it in 3D so the movies looks wierd.

  • Art

    This is good news to me. No need to wear uncomfortable special glasses that darken the colors in what will already be a very dark and colorless film and I can wear my prescription glasses and see everything crystal clear!

    • wolfpack

      The IMAX version of Order of the Phoenix had the last 20-30 minutes in 3d. It was pretty much just the final big battle IIRC. The 3d was okay, not great, but not awful and totally distracting either. Apparantly Half-Blood Prince had the opening sequence in the IMAX version in 3d as well, although I didn’t personally see the IMAX version of that one.

    • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

      Even if it was in 3D, you would still have the option to attend 2d.

      • cloud720

        I don’t know how things are in Canada, but many of us here in the U.S. are reporting that we don’t have the 2D option. I may be able to travel an “extra 15 mins” to see a movie in 2D but that would be on some shitty 15 foot screen. And I’m lucky to even have that option.

      • Art

        Agreed. In many theaters it depends on what night u go to the theater. 2D options are not always available every night. And usually on the big nights like Friday and Saturday nights only 3D is available.

  • Bill_Kiddo

    Thank god no 3D. Harry Potter has NEVER needed 3D, it doesn’t benefit from it. Plus, 2D will now be available everywhere, normally when a 2D movie is also released in 3D, the 3D takes up the majority of the theaters

  • AAH

    @ Rodney , no dude where i live is like double times that amount

  • fullmetal_medji

    Thank goodness. Of course I wasn’t going to see it in 3D anyway. Plus wasn’t the last Harry Potter movie in 3D?

  • cloud720

    I could have swore one of these movies were in I-max 3d. Maybe the 5th one.

    • Josh

      if memory serves the 5th and 6th were both in IMAX but not IMAX 3D

  • AAH

    man a 3d ticket is expensive, im glad HP 7 part 1 is in normal 2d, if it was in 3d i maybe might not of go to see it.

    • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

      No one said it would be exclusively 3D. Every 3D film has had a traditional screening available as well.

      No reason to avoid seeing it in 2D because there is a 3D version out.

      • cloud720

        I for one am not traveling out of my way to see a movie in 2d because all local theaters are only playing the film in 3d.

        And yes this has been the case before. I live in nyc, which has many theaters, so I can only imagine people who live in cities or towns with only one or two movie theaters.

      • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

        RARE very exclusive very limited exception to the rule. 99.999% of the rest of the country doesn’t get deliberately screwed over like you are Cloud… we have heard it already.

        15million people living in one square mile and not one theater in 2d. Because that happens everywhere else in the world because you don’t want to take the subway 15 more minutes away.

        The world still turns.

      • AAH

        well the country i live, 2d is not an option, is either you pay to see it in 3d or you don’t watch the film. And with the amount of 3d movies coming out next year summer, i wouldn’t be able to see half of them and is every week a new 3d movie is releasing , the only movie that i have to see that has the 3d mark next to it is Green Lantern …

      • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

        So you wont go see it because it is in 3D, unless you want to go see it?

        I can see you cling to your causes.

      • AAH

        @ Rodney no i wont go see it not because it is in 3d, but because of the price of a 3d ticket,

      • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

        If a few extra bucks is stopping you from seeing a movie, that is your choice, though pretty extreme over 2-3 extra dollars.

      • Obidan

        Ya Rodney . . . your assessment of 99.999% of the country not having the problem with only getting a movie in 3D is quite inaccurate. I live in Kansas and we have 1 theatre in town and if the film comes out in 3D, we get it in 3D. No other options. The next closest town with a theatre is 60 miles away and has only one screen, which was just updated to 3D, so now they get 3D only. Almost every town in the area, even the ones with a theatre with more then one screen only get the films in 3D. I have to drive a minimum of 3 hours to go to a theatre that shows a film in both 3D and 2D. And I know there are plenty of other states that have this problem as well. It’s just not an option for people who don’t live on the coasts or near cities. And we make up more then 0.0001% of the population. Just throwing that out there.

      • http://Www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

        You are just proving my point that situations where there are no 3d options are rare and the massive majority of the population do have that option.

        If the next closest town is 3 hours away then you are the exception. Not the proof.

    • Obidan

      What! My point was that there are many people who don’t have the option to see a 3D film in 2D. You were making the generalization that almost everyone (99.9999%) are able to choose whether they see a movie in 3D or not. But there are a lot of us who either see a film at the inflated 3D prices or not see it at all, thus going back to Cloud’s original point about how some don’t want to travel just to see a film in 3D. Your right, I don’t have the option. The option to NOT see a film in 3D, like I want.

      • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

        “A lot of us” is a wide generalization when in reality it is still a rare situation that you would not be given the option of both.

        It might not be 99.999%, but its still the vast majority, of which you are still the exception to the rule, not proof against it.

        Nearest town is 3 hours away? Be thankful you HAVE a theater.

    • Obidan

      Man the complaint wasn’t about the drive. The complaint was that there are a lot of us who don’t like cheap 3D that is only put on the film to make extra money and it sucks for us that don’t have a choice. I wish I was fortunate enough to have the choice to see films in 2D. You can love 3D all you want but the end of the day, it is mostly used as a gimmick to get people to spend more money at the theatre, regardless wether the tech is better now then it was in the past. And I’m not saying its going to go away either. But the only exception here is that a few of the films with 3D actually benefit from it and as for the rest, it doesn’t enhance the experience, just the cost of the ticket. And that is why whenever there is a post here about 3D, most of the comments are about how much it sucks. The reason 3D films sell more tickets then their 2D version is because many people DON’T HAVE THE OPTION! It’s not because they prefer them.

      • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

        Id like to see your research on that, because the major chains currently have less than half their screens with 3D projectors, and aim to achieve higher percentages.

        So your assumption that more people go to 3D because they don’t have the option is just statistically incorrect.

  • Marco

    I don’t get it Rodney. Why do you love 3D so much? Why is it so important to you? Also, I don’t think it’s fair to compare it to CGI.

    • Obidan

      I was kind of wondering the same thing to. I’m not saying 3D is bad, or a fad or anything. Sometimes it works great. Most times it’s kind of blah. Occasionally it’s down right terrible. But at the end of the day, especially with films that convert to 3D after the fact, it’s not done because the effect will add to the film but because the studio can make money off of it. It is a hook to get people to step away from their 65″ TV’s and go back to the theatre. Plus they can up the prices to stupid high amounts and we, the people who have been going to the theatre our whole lives, get to pay the price so they can make a few extra bucks. I love going to see films like Avatar where the 3D was really utilized and enhanced the experience. But most times when films have the “in 3D” attached its to make money. And thats the real reason why most of us don’t care for it. To the studios, use the effect when its affects the film in a positive way, and for most other times just give us the movie, please.

      • jack

        great statement Obidan

    • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

      I don’t “love 3d so much” but I don’t think it deserves all the hate these very small groups throw at it.

      And comparing it to CGI is perfectly acceptable. 3D is just another special effect to add to the film. And just like CG, it can be done well and be effective or done poorly and distract you from the film.

      And considering how many people are eagerly lining up to see 3D versions, despite the online bile against it, clearly the majority like the effect.

  • http://five-things.net/ Setiawan

    Yeah, I have the same suspicion too.

  • Michael V Banno

    I say they re-release it a bit closer to release of Part II and have the 3D then.