3-D Anniversary Special

[Allyn Gibson]

The BBC announced an Anniversary Special in 3D today.

It's unclear if this is the special filming in April or if this is a separate special.

If it is the special filming in April, the post-production work to make it 3D would make sense of why it's filming so early.

 

[Lonemagpie]

It's the hour-long one filming in April

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/02/11/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-special-will-be-in-3d/

not having 3D or any interest in it, big fucking deal - I'm still puzzling over why they're wasting money on a simulcast for the 17 people in the UK who *have* 3D tellies instead of making either more or longer fucking episodes for the other umpteen fucking millions of us!

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The BBC article wasn't clear since it was talking otherwise about new commissions, while the anniversary special was commissioned with series 7.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a cash-strapped BBC wasting money on a 3-D television special. This news does make sense of the many oddities surrounding it -- why it's only an hour (so there's less film and less FX to deal with), why it's filming in April (long post-production time).

I have the fear that it's going to be more of a showcase for the world of Doctor Who in 3-D (the console room, Daleks, that sort of thing) than an actual story, though.

 

[Lonemagpie]

TBH, the delays and shrinking seasons have left me not caring any more. I'll enjoy it when it's on, but...

At least Game Of Thrones is back at Easter as well, so the year's TV isn't a total loss.

 

[Turbo]

Unbelievable. Yes, let's waste money on a stunt instead of producing an actual 90-minute special or more episodes of the series.

 

[StCoop]

So just to be clear the 50th Anniversary Special is..."Dimensions in Time II".

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[Mr Awe]

Dang, if the story is shorter because it's in 3D, that sucks!

Mr Awe

 

[Sindatur]

So, for those of us who are ignorant about 3D TV, if you don't have a 3D TV, it will have no effect on you right? No distortion or degradation of qualty if veiwed on a regular TV?

Also, do 3D TVs really work? Do you actually see a 3D effect?

And yea, if they only made it 1hr, so they could afford to 3D it, that really sucks. I guess it's future proofed, but, man, what a bummer.

 

[Samurai8472]

I don't want to see Matt Smith's face zooming straight to me.

 

[OmahaStar]

So, for those of us who are ignorant about 3D TV, if you don't have a 3D TV, it will have no effect on you right? No distortion or degradation of qualty if veiwed on a regular TV?

Also, do 3D TVs really work? Do you actually see a 3D effect?

And yea, if they only made it 1hr, so they could afford to 3D it, that really sucks. I guess it's future proofed, but, man, what a bummer.

Go into your local Best Buy and they have 3D sets on display. They look like shit. Then you put the glasses on ... Oh, btw, you generally get one pair of glasses with it, and extras are $150 per pair.

Unless you are at the "sweet spot" exactly the right distance away, and not off to the side by so much as a centemeter, it looks sort of 3d-ish. If you're trying to watch it with someone else, neither will have a good experience watching.

The technology isn't there, the tv screens are too small, and it's basically full of suckitude.

To pay the outrageous amount of money it will cost to produce this sucker in 3D for the tiny amount of the audience who actually has the ability to watch it ... well, frankly, it's insane.

 

[StCoop]

To pay the outrageous amount of money it will cost to produce this sucker in 3D for the tiny amount of the audience who actually has the ability to watch it ... well, frankly, it's insane.

They're also going to be showing it in cinemas, thereby getting people in the UK who've already paid for it via the License Fee to pay for it again.

Ka-ching!

 

[Mr Awe]

Paying for a 60 minute TV episode, well I never!

 

[DalekJim]

I'm one of the biggest Doctor Who fans in the world. But I doubt even I'll ever bother watching this in 3d.

Oh, and I agree it should be 90 minutes.

 

[OmahaStar]

Paying for a 60 minute TV episode, well I never!

Paramount has done it many times in the UK with Star Trek episodes. Granted, it's usually two episodes, so about 80 minutes, but still.

There are also theaters that show classic Who (none around here, dammit!). It's not *that* uncommon.

Still, why is it in 3d? Why not spend the money on making it longer and giving us all the Doctors?

 

[Candlelight]

If it is the special filming in April, the post-production work to make it 3D would make sense of why it's filming so early.

3D post production shouldn't take too long. The show is cut 2D, and only finished in 3D.

I worked on a show with a season of 20 3D episodes and we did it all in the space of 10 months - they're only doing 1 episode!

 

[StCoop]

Still, why is it in 3d? Why not spend the money on making it longer and giving us all the Doctors?

They've paid for 3D cameras and have to amortise the costs?

It's going to be a bigger budget version of a Christmas Special, self-contained and designed to be followed by a casual viewer.

 

[StCoop]

3D post production shouldn't take too long. The show is cut 2D, and only finished in 3D.

No, it's being shot with 3D cameras.

 

[DalekJim]

casual viewer.

*shudders*

 

[Sindatur]

So, for those of us who are ignorant about 3D TV, if you don't have a 3D TV, it will have no effect on you right? No distortion or degradation of qualty if veiwed on a regular TV?

Also, do 3D TVs really work? Do you actually see a 3D effect?

And yea, if they only made it 1hr, so they could afford to 3D it, that really sucks. I guess it's future proofed, but, man, what a bummer.

Go into your local Best Buy and they have 3D sets on display. They look like shit. Then you put the glasses on ... Oh, btw, you generally get one pair of glasses with it, and extras are $150 per pair.

Unless you are at the "sweet spot" exactly the right distance away, and not off to the side by so much as a centemeter, it looks sort of 3d-ish. If you're trying to watch it with someone else, neither will have a good experience watching.

The technology isn't there, the tv screens are too small, and it's basically full of suckitude.

To pay the outrageous amount of money it will cost to produce this sucker in 3D for the tiny amount of the audience who actually has the ability to watch it ... well, frankly, it's insane.

Heh, so really, no different than a 3D DVD on a regular set wit Glasses. I had exactly the same experience with the Freddy Krueger movie that has the 3D scenes and with a 3D version of Night of the Living Dead. If you have on the glasses, and sit in exactly the right place, you kinda get the effect, if you'renot lined up exactly right and the exact right difference, no effect (other than being able to see the picture clearly), and uwatchable without the glasses on.

 

[StalwartUK]

What a waste of time and money. No doubt the special will be more about screaming "Look, it's in 3D!" than even trying to tell a decent story. It'll be decisions like this to obsess over gimmicks such as 3D that will kill the series.