According to THR’s blog Warner Bros has ordered a 3D test of Clash of the Titans, which they will screen next week before deciding if it’s worth it to make the movie.
While the film wasn’t shot in 3D, technology has allowed 2D films to undergo a conversion to add another dimension. It’s what they did with the recent Nightmare Before Christmas and Toy Story revivals, and something that was considered for a while with Iron Man 2. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland was made the same way.
It’s probably a smart idea, as people looking for the next big experience after Avatar will likely plunk down the extra dough to mythological beasts fighting it out in 3D. One problem- Paramount’s releasing Dreamworks Animation’s How To Train Your Dragon in 3D the same day as Clash (March 26th), and there simply might not be enough screens to go around.
Think what you want of Avatar but it looks like it has changed one
thing- we’ll be seeing a helluva lot more 3D films in the future. With
everyone trying to cash in on its success expect many more films to
either be announced in 3D (yes, even more than before) or to undergo
the conversion process.
Wonder when this trend will finally die (only to reemerge decades later) on our boards.
15 comments
I know I ain't paying a premium price unless it was shot in 3D, a la Avatar, and even then if it looks like quality or comes from a quality source, a la Cameron. Otherwise its a matinee for the blockbusters and theater pub for the rest.
Avatar has made a shitton of money in 3D, but my opinion is that a lot of its success is due to 3D being a "novelty". Therefore, studio execs are concluding that 3D means great earnings based on the numbers of Avatar, but NOBODY asked the audience if they liked it or not / if they found it to be effective or not.
I think that making everything in 3D is where this whole 3D issue may come to bite them in the ass. It's kind of new for a movie that wasn't a horror movie or bad thriller. Avatar did it well. But once it's done to the next batch of films, it could lose it's allure.
3D as a afterthought is always a bad idea. The picture looks dark and the colors are off. Avatar was shot and color corrected in 3D, which is why it looked better than any other 3D movie before it.
Meh, if I want to watch something in 3D I'll go see a play. It was a fad in the 80s and it'll be again. My entire family hates 3D (including my eight year old) and the wife can't watch anything 3D as she's blind in one eye.
As long as my theater has this in 2D we'll be in line opening weekend otherwise we'll just pick it up at Redbox in about six months or so.
3-D makes the theater experience so much more difficult. It narrows the range of acceptable seats, meaning you have to get there earlier; if the temp is too high in the theater, the glasses may fog; and it's more expensive. I was willing to enjoy the gimmick for a while, but I've had about enough.
I still stand by the fact that Avatar's 3D was very underwhelming after 30 minutes. If I have forgotten I am watching 3D, then there is no point. It is a gimmick, and should be used as one.
I see in 3D all day long. When I go to the cinema, I want to see in 2D.
What a bunch of cranky old Abe Simpsons you all are. Go and shake your fists at the screen while everyone else enjoys the movie.
Terrormaster, what an arse you are, your arguments made me laugh in derision. And to anyone else who thinks 3D is a fad and won't last, you'll clearly believe ANYTHING so I got some more news for ya – the world is flat! Oh, and you're gonna score a date with Nat Portman. Dumb asses.
3D has brought a lot of excitement to the movie-going experience that just cannot be ignored.. most definitely not a fad..
I want to see 5D movies, where the dark elder gods are visible beyond the cinema screen, enjoying the show from their dungeon dimension.
I know there are movies I would like in 4d so I could go back in time and get two hours of my life back.
I would pay good money to see either #12 or #13! Other than that I agree with ERB hopeful; 3-D, like iMax, should be an experience reserved for the odd special film that's WORTH shelling out a few extra bucks for. Unfortunately, no one told me about Transformers 2 before I permanently branded it as the first movie I would ever see in iMax. See, THERE's a movie that could've used a 4-D viewing..
Lame joke, I know. 'Transformers 2' made lots of money and thats's great for it; I got a problem with that then I suppose that's my issue. If I didn't like it then maybe I should get off my butt and try'n make a better movie myself, right? No real reason for this post, really; just feel like I may've trashed that film a little with my post and I just don't wanna see myself turn into that guy who rips on stuff just because he's on the internet and can. If I ever get to meet Michael Bay in person maybe THEN I'll ask him about some of the stuff I thought were somewhat off with the Transformer's film. Until such a time, however, I suppose I'll just go and re-watch 'The Rock' and sit quietly in my corner waiting for them to come out with a Ninja Turtles movie that can top the first one.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.