Marvel Considering Converting Iron Man 2 Entirely to 3D?!
It was inevitable, wasn't it? Especially after I saw Marvel Studio's Kevin Feige going in to watch the Avatar Day footage at the same theater I was at. Eventually Marvel (and the rest of Hollywood) would want to make all their movies in 3D, too. And while people are saying negative things about the way the CGI in Avatar looks, no one is saying anything bad about the 3D. Harry at AICN has published a scoop claiming ("I can state that the following is absolutely true") that Marvel is looking at converting Jon Favreau's Iron Man 2 into 3D. On top of that, they're considering converting Iron Man 1 to 3D and re-releasing it a bit earlier.
Here's an excerpt from Harry's article about why Marvel is so damn interested in paying for the conversion.
Right now, there is a 1 minute demo of IRON MAN 2 converted to high quality digital 3D. I'm told this one minute is totally like Kim Basinger & Mickey Rourke in 9 1/2 WEEKS. HOT! Crazy Hot! Right now the Suits at Marvel & Paramount & now also Disney are considering this 1 minute.
At the same time that this is happening, they are fishing for bids with 3 different companies to see what the cost and time it would take to convert IRON MAN 2 to a complete 3D film. This same process is being done to Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
Before I go on any further (about how awesome it would be to see Iron Man flying and fighting in 3D), let me recall a quote from James Cameron himself that comes from a conference he spoke at. At last year's 3D Entertainment Summit, Cameron participated in a Q&A and was asked at one point about his thoughts on Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in 3D. "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D," he said. He also criticized the red-and-blue 3D movies on DVDs, saying it was "stunting 3D growth." I've been a strong anti-3D advocate for a long time, but have openly said that it will be Cameron who changes my mind. And yet he's dead on with that statement - converting 2D to 3D does not make any sense.
I don't want to get into all the technical details, but personally I just don't think the conversion process results in high quality 3D (it looks layered). Did anyone see the 3D segments of Superman Returns or Harry Potter? They looked terrible. The only movies that I have praised for their use of 3D (U2 3D, Monsters vs Aliens, Pixar's Up) have been movies that were shot in 3D and/or created from the ground up in 3D. It really makes all the difference and I feel like this decision is simply because they're getting excited about 3D and want to be a part of that revolution (which I predict will fully kick off with Avatar). But do we need this?
Getting back to the news at hand, though, apparently this 1-minute 3D demo reel looks so good, that they're even considering converting Iron Man to 3D. "There's a chance they'll actually pony up to convert Iron Man for a reissue in advance of Iron Man 2's summer release," Harry says. Hell, I'd love to see Iron Man re-released, because it'd be fun to watch that in theaters right before seeing Iron Man 2 in theaters, but as for the 3D, I'm just not into it. I'm also stunned that so many people are unsure of seeing 3 hours of Avatar in 3D (like this comment) yet are probably going to be excited by this news. Need I remind you that the 3D probably won't look that good if it has to be converted? I just want a great movie, it doesn't need to be in 3D.
Head over to Ain't It Cool News to read Harry's entire article. I admit that I may be jumping the gun on this and the conversion could look great, but for now I can't get behind their decision. What do you think?