3D This, 3D That: Clash, Potter Back in 3D; Transformers, Too
Here we go, welcome to the world after Avatar has made over $2 billion. It's now the time when every day we hear about another goddamn movie potentially going 3D just because it's the most popular trend in Hollywood right now since vampires. We previously heard "rumors" exactly a week ago stating that Louis Leterrier's Clash of the Titans remake would be going 3D, pushing the release back a week to April 2nd, and that the last two Harry Potter movies would both be in 3D, too. Now Warner Brothers has confirmed that all three of those movies will be going 3D. And then there's talk about Transformers 3 going 3D, too!
Bay's next project is "Transformers 3," and there have been discussions among Bay, Paramount and Industrial Light & Magic about going 3D with the pic. The big stumbling block is the extra time required to do production and visual effects in 3D, as the movie's release date is already set. Having the pic post-converted could alleviate that problem.
Oh no, why would they ever consider converting to 3D in post-production when this is one movie they could start shooting from the ground up in 3D?! It makes no sense. Paramount has set a July 1st, 2011 release for Transformers 3, which seems far away and actually really is. Warner Bros has also pushed the release of Clash of the Titans back to April 2nd in order to allow them to finish the 3D conversion. One big concern, though, is that there won't be enough screens to run all 3D movies in April (including Alice in Wonderland and maybe still Avatar). I guess we'll find out soon. Though I'll be seeing Clash of the Titans in 2D, not 3D.
I truly hope people will understand the difference between the post-3D and a movie planned from preproduction and filmed in 3D, or else big budget movies will start just tacking on 3D in post to ride the 2 billion Avatar 3D wave. Let's hope we take this fad and make it actujally count towards at least a little something
scott on Feb 3, 2010
Please, fellow movie buffs. Don't watch any movies in 3D that are post-production developed. Unless you really want to. I'd prefer you didn't. Thanks!
Mark D on Feb 3, 2010
Most people dont even know or care how they do the 3d, they'll just flock like sheep. Like Bay has been thinking about doing TF3 in 3d, it's been a done deal. I've been tired of hearing about this and that coming out in 3d, by the end of the year I'm going to reaaaaaaally sick of it.
People's Champ on Feb 3, 2010
Michael Bay is a smart guy. He knows that 3D is just a gimmick. I hope he skips the whole hype. The only reason why Avatar did so well in 3D is because most of it was actually CGI and that's very easily correctly rendered in 3D. Filming live action in 3D is a whole different thing. Although Avatar looked amazing, without the 3D it wasn't really a different movie.
Rickmeister on Feb 3, 2010
Welcome to the end of cinema, friends.
whomever on Feb 3, 2010
lol ...bay called 3d a gimmick..lets see what he has to say when the movie releases in 3D...
HellBoy on Feb 3, 2010
Avatar was great in 3D but it was very tiring for the eyes. Everyone is trying to grap more money now, the consumer electronic companies promoting 3D tvs, 3D projectors, 3D blu-ray Players...the movie companies are doing the same. I don' t have and i don't want to spent my money on new equipment so soon. They are lust for money again! DON't go to 3D movies, DON'T buy their 3D ready stuff! Fuck them.
var2apo on Feb 3, 2010
FUCK 3D,that's all i fucking hear nowdays,that this film going to be in fucking 3d that film going to be in fucking 3d who really gives a shit,i don't mind watching films how they use to be made you know the standard 2d ones.
DEADPOOL,MERC WITH A MOUTH on Feb 3, 2010
James Cameron set out to change the movie industry and he has but it doesn't mean that such things don't come with a backlash. Avatar pretty much caught Hollywood with their pants down and now the standard for any blockbuster will be 3D. These movies will be converted in 3d because when they started production they didn't know that a year later Avatar was going to change everything and now everyone is just trying to catch up. Now, whether a film is made in 3d or converted afterward does not diminish the integrity of the film, it just offers more choices for the public. It's called "progress" people, things change for the better and for the worst whether you want to or not. So if you don't want to see a movie that's converted in 3D then don't. I'm honestly looking forward Clash and Alice in 3D, I am avoiding Transformers 3 in 2d and 3d on principle alone, and honestly do not care much for the harry Potter franchise. note: Hey Billington, I bet you'll change your mind about 3d when they announce they are converting Percy Jackson right?
almartva on Feb 3, 2010
I thought they could only convert Digital shoot scene and not live action if it was not originally shoot with a 3D camera, this means that only parts of Clash of the Titans shoot in digital will be able to converted to 3D:” The live action shoots will not be in 3D or the conversion of these scenes will not convert all that well.
Cineprog on Feb 3, 2010
Alex, you are forgetting the biggest hindrance. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 3D comes out MARCH 26th! A week BEFORE this in both IMAX and 3D and since Dreamworks has a lock on 3D, I don't see many screens left for this considering there are only 3000 some 3D screens currently in operation (just enough for ONE film to be in wide release).
Ryan on Feb 3, 2010
3D is a huge gimmick. Most theaters do not compensate for the loss of detail that results from the dimming the polarized glasses produce. I enjoyed Avatar way more in 2D after seeing it in 3D simply because the picture was so much brighter and clearer. And watching 3D at home is only going to somewhat effective if you have a screen of 55-60'' or larger. I for one don't have the space in my home for a screen of that size. I am so sick of the resurgence of 3D as a method of getting butts back into theaters. It was a gimmick in the 50s and 70s and is again. I don't care if its done from pre-production or in post. Avatar kinda made the 3D a more immersive experience, rather than just a gimmick, but most 3D films add nothing. If you want 3D entertainment, go on an amusement park ride. They've been in 3D for years!!
Drew on Feb 3, 2010
3D will be the end of film as art. 3D is a gimmick to get people that dont care about movies to go spend their money and see them. is that bad, not necessarily but we also have to remember that people were still going to see movies even when they werent in 3D. this 3D BS makes me furious and will kill this beautiful art form.
3D.... on Feb 3, 2010
You just wait. There will be this push from studios to re-release classic films redone with 3D in post-conversion. Goodfellas in 3D anyone? Actually that's a bad example. Scorsese would never agree to it. He's too smart to drink the kool-aid. But Spielberg on the other hand, his whole canon will be re-released in 3D within the next 10-15 years. Mark my words. and it will suck. big time. Lord I hate seeing into the future of cinema, cause its gonna get real crappy before it gets better. This 3D bs almost guarantees it. *ugh*
Drew on Feb 3, 2010
3D, remakes, squels, prequels and this Twilight shit - Christ almighty, someone shoot me now.
Hattori Hanzo on Feb 3, 2010
I think people are really overreacting this. All this is going to do is set up a new option. Movie releases are going to become similar to dvd releases. You can either buy the standard dvd, or pay a little extra for the deluxe super version that has some additional feature. The 3D version of a movie is just the equivalent of that. It's not like anyone is forcing you to see a movie in 3D. The theatre I went to had Avatar playing in both 2D and 3D, and I'm sure that was the case for many of the theaters everyone else went to as well. In fact I'm sure there were quite a few people, including myself, who had to go out of their way to find a theatre that even had the 3D option. Personally, yeah I feel 3D is just a gimmick as well. I saw Avatar three times. The first time in 3D IMAX, and then two times at my local theatre that only showed it in 2D. It made me realize that 3D doesn't matter, as long as a film has an engaging story you will forget about whether it's in 2D or 3D about 20 minutes after you've been watching it. If you can't get past what dimensions a film is in than it's probably not a film worth watching.
Alex T. on Feb 3, 2010
I'm not listening to any of you because the image of The Kraken is still blowing my mind!
jeffrey on Feb 3, 2010
One of the reasons is obvious.....with Sony's new 3-D TV on the market by July of 2010....they need the material. ALL of Sony's games by 2011 with be in the new 3-D format. The ESPN broadcasts begin in 3-D this Summer with the FIFA World Cup.
Clover on Feb 3, 2010
#15: I feel and share your pain LOL
Brian on Feb 3, 2010
Al on Feb 3, 2010
wait is Bay the only director among these who does not want 3-D and he calls it a gimmick? Clover I've heard of Sony's new 3-D TV's but I don't want a fucking football coming out of my screen!
Xerxex on Feb 3, 2010
Whatever, I think this will blow over after, it does get tiring on the eyes and you can only see so many things popping out of the screen until it just becomes annoying. As long as I can see them normal, then I wont be crying over it.....just evidence of the times, Avatar was a cash cow and studios are trying to create more. There had to be a payoff from 13 years of thinking of something up (though I didnt think it was that good), Hollywood seems to think they can slap a 3d tag on all the suppose-to-be blockbuster this year and cash in again.
Cody on Feb 3, 2010
death to 3D
jebstuart on Feb 3, 2010
Alex T. But there is a significant loss of detail and quality with 3D in theaters. At least with home 3D viewing there is the potential to compensate for the dimming the glasses create by adjusting the brightness/ contrast etc. But most theaters DO NOT but brighter bulbs or increase the brightness of the projected image, which they really should be doing and I know of only 1 theater in my major metro area that does. You said yourself you saw Avatar in both 3D and 2D. I did too and the clarity of picture was hands down, objectively better in the 2D version because it was a brighter image overall. Overreacting? maybe. But there is no reason why theaters can't adjust to create the same image brightness between the two versions. I also think this is the reason some complain about headaches from watching 3D films in theaters, not because of the 3D images or technology itself, but because the image is so damned dim they are almost squinting to see detail in the image. Your eyes shouldn't have to work that hard in 2D or 3D.
Drew on Feb 3, 2010
like anything in Hollowood, they can't do anything in moderation so that when a 3D is released, it's something special.
wm on Feb 3, 2010
LOL I love the people who say, "I want to watch movies the way they USED to be made... in 2D" That kills me. I assume you are going to turn off the sound and set your "Color" setting on your TV to OFF, so you can watch them the way they used to be. WAAA I miss the past! LOL Also, @25, As you freely admit, it is the theaters fault for not upping the brightness. Go to a theater that does. May I recommend Digital IMAX. Two projectors, POPPIN brightness and clarity. Insist on a good theater, not the death of 3D. P.S. One more LOL to the Black and White Silent Movie whiners.
Andrew on Feb 3, 2010
#27 @ Andrew. I agree 100%. People just don't like change. And it's really not being forced on them either. It's like I've said and many others have said as well, you can still go see the same movies in 2D. If you feel the 3D version is too dark or too stupid than just go see the 2D version. Stop demanding that 3D is condemned by the industry. It's like listening to people try to put an end to chocolate twizzlers because they only like strawberry. Some people like 3D, no one says you have to. Move along.
Alex T. on Feb 3, 2010
your that guy that doesnt appreciate film. you just want that prisoner in silence of the lambs to throw his goo into your lap and then you can tell your friends "whoa dude, did you just see that goo fly right at our faces! man that was awesome! 3D is awesome! people are stupid that like movies that dont fly out of the screen." yeah cause everyone said lets turn off the color on our tv's and watch everything in black and white. the argument is whether or not 3D is the next step or if its a gimmick to get people to throw a few more dollars at these studios that clearly need more money. now off to watch a movie in color on my 60" widescreen in 5.1 and sadly not in 3D 🙁 whatever will i do. days of thunder would be so much cooler if the mello yellow car came flying out at me, well damn.
andrew is an idiot on Feb 3, 2010
its Nature Trail to Hell in 3D
Jimmy Love on Feb 4, 2010
I appreciate the need for change and progres but so far only one film has done 3d acceptably and that was avatar (and even then the regular version wasnt much worse) the fact they are tacking on 3d post production will make the scenes its used in seem forced and not as engrossing as the examples in avatar. I really beleive that 3d should only be used where it is suited and whilst i can see where the above examples COULD use it i believe only clash could use it effectively, mainly due to its setting.
matt on Feb 4, 2010
@andrew is an idiot #29(by the way real mature. I guess you're just the kind of person that does "appreciate film" but can't appreciate people or their different opinions.) I appreciate film just as much as you do and I'm sure Andrew does as well. Modern 3D is here to give literal depth to films. The examples you give of the prison scene from Silence of the Lambs and the mello yellow car in Days of Thunder just prove to me that you have the same stigma as everyone else when it comes to 3D, but its really not your fault. In the past 3D has been used in films and in theme parks to give a sort of interactive element to an attraction. Films had dumb stuff like the shark swimming directly toward you in Jaws 3 and amusement parks had characters reaching out as if to touch the audience. You can't look at current day 3D as the lame 3D gimmick of days of old. And I know you are because you use phrases like "fly right at our faces!" and "flying out at me" in your examples of what would happen if they rereleased movies of the past in 3D. Films like Avatar, Clash of the Titans, ect. aren't made for the sole purpose of interacting with the audience like the 3D media in the past. There was never a point in Avatar where a Na'vi reached out at the audience. Sure if you go to a theatre to see something in 3D there's always going to be some assholes saying shit like "whoa, its like I can reach out and touch it", and for them the 3D is just a gimmick. But if you go to a 3D film and you don't just focus on the 3D alone, the 3D only adds to the realism and furthers the believability of the story being told. Don't let the fact that some people go to a 3D flick to try to interact with what is on screen ruin the benefits that 3D has to offer to a film buff like yourself.
Alex T. on Feb 4, 2010
#29 You're an idiot. No where in your post do you make any logical reasoning. The only point that was even close to a rebuttal was saying that 3D is a gimmick. And it may very well be. But if it's a gimmick, so what? Unless every single movie gets turned into 3D, it doesn't affect you in any huge way. And if old movies are remade in 3D, so fucking what. Are you going to buy it and say "Wow I fucking hate this."? Or are you going to actually be an adult and think for fucking once in your life, and decide "Hmm. I don't like 3D. So therefore, I shouldn't watch anything in 3D." And leave us all the fuck alone. And by the way, I also think that 3D is a coat tail that people are grabbing onto. But as long as it doesn't get rid of 2D movies, I could really fucking care less. It's not really hurting me besides delaying a few movies back.
danielvutran on Feb 4, 2010
These responses just crack me up. Ever since five years ago when it was coming to light that 3d was going to start coming to theaters because for the big success of Polar Express in 3d, people have been saying these exact same comments all along. We'll no one will go see them six months from now. It won't go any further. Then some months pass then it is Ok now no one will go to these 3d movie now, but it just keeps on going. Like I have said before, there are a lot of people out there that like 3d, and they are going to drive this market. Now the people that don't like 3d are like deer caught in the head lights with their mouths wide open. Just can't believe that it would ever get this far. Just wait until people start buying 3d televisions and getting the 3d dvd's. They will buy them and we all know it buy the numbers and surveys done by the television companies. That is why they are doing the home 3d thing because of the strong numbers from their surveys they have done. However, there will alway be 2d as well because not everyone will get 3d, but you sure are going to see a 3d dvd next to that 2d dvd at best buy. Get ready for it people.
Tony Robertson on Feb 6, 2010
Good God, I hate 3D. I hope that the idiots don't think of reissuing the LOTR in 3D for the next gen. I am so sick of 3D, sick of the dirty plastic glasses and sick of having a headache when the movie is finished.
Mad Moo on Oct 19, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.