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?
Its possible it will look incredible. If Marvel is willing to put down the dough to convert it, it must look good. I saw the "Alice in Wonderland" 3D footage at Comic-Con and it looked great. "Layered?" Perhaps, but still great.
Keith on Sep 1, 2009
wtf,all 3d movie are already 5 or more dollars more. i can't even afford my daily fruits and vegetables,let alone a movie ticket. converting would probably look really bad but maybe if they truly wanted to create a movie in 3d they should perhaps wait until The Avengers or Captain America to try it out,depending on the success of Avatar. And hopefully i make enough money to waste it on 3d movies. damn economy.
erik on Sep 1, 2009
Marvel, if you're listening, I won't pony up the extra $5 to see Iron Man 2 in 3D unless I hear good things about it in advance though. Same goes for the re-release of Iron Man in 3D
Keith on Sep 1, 2009
#3 you are an idiot....okay if you want to hear good things about IRONMAN 2, but you already know what the first IRONMAN movie was like...so you either want to see the first again in 3D or you dont....DUMB STATEMENT KEITH !!!
CORNBOY on Sep 2, 2009
CORNBOY's an ass hole 😉 good for him. I love it when people just make ass hole remarks... i do it all the time and enjoy it thoroughly. Such As: I'm seeing IronMan 2 in 2D cause that's how i like my movies cheaper and not popin!!! and I'm not going to a re-release of IronMan cause i got that shit on blu ray and that's good enough for me! that to stupid of a statement for ya CORNBOY? well then CRAM IT! yeah 🙂
DoomCanoe on Sep 2, 2009
yeah and drive away core fans, bad decision if true. why not leave it alone keeps this 3D gimmick away from Ironman 2. 3D will come and go again its good on paper but bad in reality. This is my opinion and so don't get pissy. I in my own opinion I find that 3D is overrated and unnecessary, just make it in the good ole fashion way, and I guarantee Ironman 2 will hit it big, it dosen't need to be in 3D to make money, its already going to make it big opening weekend.
Xerxex on Sep 2, 2009
#4 Cornboy: How is your cave, Troll? Dark and gloomy, just the way you like it? If I hear that the re-release of Iron Man in 3D looks like crap I'm not going to see it. Nobody knows at this point how it is going to look, including yourself. I'm not going to make the decision whether to see the 3D re-release or not see it right now when I have no information upon which to make such a decision. If critics say the 3D looks great, I MIGHT go see it. If they say it looks bad, I definitely won't. Contrary to your laughably erroneous assumption, an informed decision cannot be made at this point in time. Do you understand?
Keith on Sep 2, 2009
i couldn't give a fuck about ironman & ironman 2 being in 3d,now porn just imagine an audrey bitoni pov in 3d now that would be fucking wicked.
zetsu on Sep 2, 2009
no 3D please... I really no likey... not much of a difference for me...I mean its still on a flat screen, but it seems like it pops out... now if they made a 180 degree screen that covers both frontal and peripheral vision WITH 3D tech...that would be totally different... but maybe im just sleepy...3:30 A.M....
zeldaprimed on Sep 2, 2009
Ice Cube wasn't joking when he said it's all about the benjamins.
germs on Sep 2, 2009
If its going to be as good as the first it DOESN"T NEED to be in 3D!
Nick Sears on Sep 2, 2009
I guess I'm the only one who liked the 3D parts in the latest Harry Potter movie. I thought the movie went flat, pun intended, once it switched back to 2D.
ebbie on Sep 2, 2009
If you ned to make your moie 3-D, and i have to wear stupid glasses the enire time. Well forget it. Go figure that they want to do IronMan in 3-D like two days after Disney buys Marvel. Great. How long Goofy.
AllmightyKeim on Sep 2, 2009
@ DoomCanoe You like your movies cheaper, but you bought it on Blu Ray? Logic FAIL.
yuck on Sep 2, 2009
Like I keep saying, Avatar needs to fail for the sole purpose of putting a stop to 3D movies. Hopefully we won't have to worry about it anymore come next year.
Tra la la la la di da on Sep 2, 2009
what's with this 3D crap? can it be that much better?
cat on Sep 2, 2009
Alex - you're slowly but surely becoming everything that made me quit reading Josh Tyler's site. I'm not a big fan of 3-D movies either, but everything you write anymore just feels so synical and negative. I'm a big fan of FirstShowing, and I love your format, but I'm worried that you're losing touch with what made you love movies in the first place.
TCox on Sep 2, 2009
Yes please, leave it alone.......MARVEL needs to worry on how they can get back Spidey and XMen rights, that's what should put money into not this 3d crap..... this 3d shit they way things are with the first word being sue', watch someone move their neck due to a naturally reaction, get hurt and say it's due to the movie and 3d.....that will be funny
Blue & Orange NY on Sep 2, 2009
Yes please, leave it alone.......MARVEL needs to worry on how they can get back Spidey and XMen rights, that's what should put money into not this 3d crap..... this 3d shit they way things are with the first word being sue', watch someone move their neck due to a naturally reaction, get hurt and say it's due to the movie and 3d.....that will be funny Watch some try to dodge Whipsplash whip due to 3d and then they leave with a bad case of whipsplash and they sue sue sue sue lol
Blue & Orange NY on Sep 2, 2009
God, 3D is incredibly lame.
Jason on Sep 2, 2009
at #10 thats what IMAX used to do and still does in there original theatres...
ha1rball on Sep 2, 2009
3D is ruining my life. Marvel needs to worry about fuckin fixing up their lineup of movies. Wolverine Origins was crap. X-Men 1 was decent but the rest was garbage. Spidey movies are my guilty pleasure... but they need to be redone by someone who actually fucking cares about the comics and the storylines. let's not even talk about daredevil or elektra... anyone up for seeing Ben Affleck again in red tights.... BUT IN 3D!?
luishungry on Sep 2, 2009
I agree that Marvel has better things to worry about. Like the fact that Fox's rights to their characters are dying soon, so they need to get on that. Fuc% 3D-conversion. Get off the damned bandwagon everybody... $hit!
Alfredo on Sep 2, 2009
touche # 16... touche
DoomCanoe on Sep 2, 2009
#15 makes a very good and scary point
Silver on Sep 2, 2009
ohhhhhhh...thankee ha1rball... I havent been to an IMAX since like i was 13 or 14...can't remember... now 21... either way...Please no 3D...
zeldaprimed on Sep 2, 2009
Alex, maybe the conversion technology has improved recently? Have there been any breakthroughs that you know of? I remember reading that Burton did a number of test shoots prior to making Alice to decide what process to go with, and no one on the crew could tell the difference between the shot-in-3D footage and the converted 2D footage. And the 2D approach apparently was much, much cheaper. I'd like to know more about how they do it...
Mathieu on Sep 2, 2009
u must b kidding . i went 2 c g-force in 3d and it just ruined the film. bollocks 2 this 3d shit.
keith on Sep 2, 2009
Fuck no thanks.
snickers on Sep 3, 2009
why why why!!! NO 3D!!! it sucked in the 70's and it still sucks now!! leave it alone and spend money on CGI!
thejugfather on Sep 3, 2009
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.