It’s been inevitable for some time that 3D conversion would start swallowing up classic titles and spitting them back at us. The Hollywood frenzy to jump on the 3D bandwagon means that a whole new side-industry has exploded and filled itself with new companies and technicians, and now the process has peaked and been commodified right as virtually all 3D films are being shot natively (if the studio wants the premium). What does this leave behind? A bunch of firms that are ready and willing to run films through the pop-up-book process, with very little demand for the process to be applied to new films. This means there exists a veritable hungry turbine of filmic degradation that is ready and will to suck up your favorite films and feed them back to you. Naturally it’s the all-time, decades-long iconic money makers that will get targeted first– Star Wars 3D is coming, Wizard of Oz 3D is inevitable, The Lion King 3D is out there right now…
Fucking Top Gun 3D?
Yep, a piece of the conversion was demonstrated at a recent convention by the conversion company, with word that early 2012 is the target release window.
I get it. The movies was the top grosser of 1986 (though it only beat Crocodile Dundee domestically by 2 million), and more importantly it was true worldwide hit that saw half of its +$350 gross come from overseas. That wasn’t so much a thing in the mid-80s as it is now. And then while its total gross would adjust to something a bit north of $750m (huge, but not Pirates/Potter huge), one can only guess how much it’s made on home video and cable. But still, fucking Top Gun?
You have to understand that by the time I was watching movies with a brain that could be considered sentient, Top Gun was already a joke. I can definitely see the appeal of the famous airborne action being given an extra layer ooomph (if it translates well), but I don’t know if I’ll personally be ready to stomach all the waves of pure, distilled 80s to see it. That said, I’ve never gotten a good read on how Top Gun is seen these days by the mainstream or by more invested film buffs, so I may be flying solo on this one. I guess I’ll find out though, as I understand Nick has a review of the film’s new Blu-ray that will be up soon…
[EDIT: And here it is. Nick looks back rather fondly…]
Apparently Tony Scott will have to approve the conversion before it’s finished and released by Paramount, but considering the man lives to tear apart your eyeballs, I don’t think he’ll have a problem with it.
twitter, comments, boards
Source | THR
15 comments
A couple of years ago, there were a few postproduction houses that were doing tests to 3D convert 2001: A Space Odyssey. I wish I was joking.
I think I can see more rationale for 3D 2001 than 3D Top Gun.
I can see less issues altering films of directors who are still alive to have a say in said alterations.
3D isn’t altering content but presentation so it’s not really that big a deal.
Absolutely a big deal. Film is a static art that exists only by virtue of presentation first of all, so presentation *is* content in our medium. I’d argue this is true of all art, but in film especially presentation and content are inseparable.
Even more important than that though, is that 3D conversion requires editorial decision of what portions of a frame will be brought forward or back, and by how much. These are decisions that can and do alter the focal point of a given frame, and can interfere with (or, admittedly, enhance) the effective gestalt created by lighting composition and movement of the focal plane.
It’s more subtle, but it’s perfectly legitimate to compare a 3D conversion to a colorization. It’s by no means impossible to do it well or to even “improve” a film, but that requires as much thought to be put into it as was put into the original photography, and that that thinking be done by the same people.
Well said, sir.
I wish we could thumb up comments.
Film is not a static art, it’s ‘moving’ pictures. It’s also a medium that is now open to interpretation by everyone who owns editing software.
Why object to anyone, say Douglas Trumbull, doing a 3D conversion even as a way to get more people seeing 2001? Yes, it’s a gimmick but so was Cinerama which was the original way 2001 was viewed yet no one sees it like that anymore. If the coversion is a ‘tasteful’ one I see no objection, it may enhance certain aspects unseen and generate some income.
The original version exists and always will, it’s not like George Lucas is in charge of the way we view films forever, nothing should replace the original.
Film is fluid and I don’t object to interpretations as long as the original vision survives. The idea of boxing ‘art’ in is a conservative one, a fanboy urge of ownership, nothing should be so sacred that it can’t be reinterpreted, it’s not a religion or a dogma.
I wouln’t object to a 3D conversion of 2001, if Kubrick were still here and shepherded the conversion. It’s fundamentally important that the original director do it, otherwise you’re fucking with somebody elses art and that’s not cool. In fact, I’d love to see a 3D conversion of Blade Runner – but only with Ridley Scott’s involvement.
Truthfully, I think it’s a case by case basis. Commerce dictates the way these things can go too, if people don’t like it, they won’t see it/buy it. People have been fucking with others art since man first drew on a cave wall.
Let’s get something straight, no one is fucking with the originals if they all ready exist. Film is a mass production medium by it’s very nature, copies of copies that get rewatched/reused in different ways. Whether that’s on an individual basis with someone recutting a film their own way for personal viewing or a studio doing a 3D conversion makes no real difference, a studio will only alter something they believe will sell enough to make a profit and cover cost so worrying about ‘originals’ being fucked-up with substantial changes is highly unlikely, people won’t buy it, bad business plan, and if it happened it wouldn’t last.
As I said it’s really on a case by case basis and I think the public react honestly, with wallets, on the quality of such undertakings.
I would be intrigued by a 3D version of 2001 especially since it’s such a pure experientially visual film and would be a new way for people to experience/appreciate it. Film is not like an original painting in a gallery where for someone to go and change/repaint over would be a shame and irreversible (unless it’s a copy). Film is mass produced with multiple copies but the original filmic decisions of the artists are still extant and should be available as such. It’s like Moroder’s version of Metropolis, it’s shit and dated and was a bad idea but I wouldn’t have stopped it being made and time has proved that most prefer the original version -which is still available- and treat Moroder’s version as an historical curio.
It’s not impossible that someone could reinterpret/recut a bad film and make it better someday and produce a version many people prefer. It will never be common but it’s possible. I certainly would like someone to recut or make available all the original hours of Heaven’s Gate footage with or without Cimino involvement but since he’s alive, it should be done with his blessing. The studio makes no money on it now anyway so why not make the footage ‘open source’? There’s a lot of material to play with in that particular film that could be made ‘coherent’ or even ‘better’ by someone with their own edit suite.
You can’t take it with you. Art is anarchy.
You’ve turned me around. I , too, would be intrigued by a 3D version 2001. I don’t know about you, but that Star Gate sequence would be amazing. What would make it more commercially viable would be to maybe add an Orbital track. That’d be dope. Also, I’m not certain, but I think when Kubrick cross-cuts between the Star Gate & Bowman’s face, he’s really trying to illustrate that this stuff we’re seeing is inside his head – I’m not sure, like I said, but I think that’s what his intentions were – so how about crash zooming into Bowan’s eye (we can CG Dulles’s face for this camera move) & go into his brain for the Star Gate visuals. I’m pretty sure Kubrick would have approved this.
Talking about CG, we should really update the initial Dawn of Man sequence with CG apes. Kubrick wanted the apes to look super-realistic, but was held back by the technology of the time. Plus, what with the new Apes movie, modern audiences would also be intrigued by what Kubrick might have done with the technology.
I don’t think changing music would add to it and judgmentally a step too far. I’m all in favour of new ways of seeing film but in something as ‘stately’ as 2001 and how as a vision it works so well as is and will be released large scale to the public, it’s a blancing act, and you don’t want to completely destroy the original spell/ambiance of the film with too many modern/contemporary sensibilities but heighten the original experience of it.
It really is a case by case consideration and some films are probably best fucked around with less than others or people will really reject the notion of re-presentation but it shouldn’t be an impediment to new ways of seeing if intentions are noble.
I’m sure many wouldn’tobject to someone else fucking around with the Star Wars prequels on a larger scale if it ever became possible to do so cheaply and well but in that case they’d be better off starting from scratch!
Firstly, let’s get this out of the way – I was being entirely sarcastic in my previous reply.
You know how you’re making these judgements about what is “a step too far” & what “heightens the original experience”? I don’t think anybody who isn’t Kubrick has the right to make these judgements (case by case, or otherwise) on his film. I’d also question what “noble intentions” you refer to when fucking up someone else’s work. Other than making money.
If you think commerce is separate form the art of mainstream film, you’re completely naive. If you believe no one can fuck around with other peoples work in such a plastic medium as film as much as modern music that is also naive. People will do it anyway whether it’s for monetary gain or just for the fuck of it whether studios do it or the man on the steet. In art no one owns anything that is all ready out in the public, copyright is becoming more and more redundant and there’s nothing that can stop that. Do you think there is a moratorium on art, I say no, it’s how the individual sees it, uses it, buys it. Unless you want a ‘Greedo should always shoot first’ law which would be preposterous.
I’m not sure if you’re being persistent with this notion that the artist has little to no rights when it comes to the created artifact just for argument’s sake, or if you really believe it…
You’re right, everyone can fuck with anything they want. There’s nothing wrong with interpretations, variations on a theme, homages… There is, however, a problem when someone else’s work is altered & re-released without the original artist’s permission. You are aware that, other than Spartacus, Kubrick famously had final cut on all his movies & that he deliberately destroyed sets, props, & unused footage on 2001 so that nobody else could use any of it without his knowledge, right? Do you think it’s morally ok to mess with the work of someone who was so protective of his work whil he was alive?
Also, I don’t understand your “Greedo” analogy. Are you saying that as Lucas is the original director, he can do what he wants to his work? I kinda agree. I personally wish he wouldn’t, but it’s his right, yes. If he started to “improve”, say, The Hidden Fortress or even the Flash Gordon serials, I’d think he was crazy, disrespectful probably breaking copyright law.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.