Timeline for Why wasn't Interstellar shot in 3D?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2015 at 18:29 | history | edited | Napoleon Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 4, 2014 at 13:36 | comment | added | Huangism | Because 3D sucks, says Nolan | |
| Dec 3, 2014 at 20:29 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 16, 2014 at 6:58 | history | edited | Ankit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2014 at 15:51 | history | edited | Ankit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 61 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2014 at 23:58 | answer | added | RomanSt | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 10, 2014 at 6:01 | comment | added | user15745 | I personally do not feel that any movie could not be effectively shot in 3D. I will admit that wide angle shots and panoramas lose the effect, but that doesn't mean it isn't viable for closer shots. Why? because we humans experience the same effect in real life: when we look off into the distance, it looks 2D...when we look at closer objects, we more easily see their 3D nature due to the angle of our eyes on the target. For a film maker to say it diminishes the art is like a director saying a movie diminishes a photograph. There will probably always be black-and-white photographers that look f | |
| Nov 9, 2014 at 15:59 | vote | accept | Ankit | ||
| Nov 8, 2014 at 16:43 | history | edited | iandotkelly♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 8, 2014 at 14:37 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMovies/status/531093185250877440 | ||
| Nov 8, 2014 at 14:10 | history | edited | Napoleon Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Nov 8, 2014 at 13:52 | answer | added | Napoleon Wilson | timeline score: 45 | |
| Nov 8, 2014 at 13:29 | answer | added | John Smith Optional | timeline score: 48 | |
| Nov 8, 2014 at 13:04 | history | edited | Napoleon Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 8, 2014 at 12:42 | comment | added | Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 | I don't have a direct answer, but would bet it's because, as you said, it's about the human story, not about the effects, though there was a lot of that going on as well. Great movie, BTW. | |
| Nov 8, 2014 at 12:06 | history | asked | Ankit | CC BY-SA 3.0 |