LATEST NEWS
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood Will NOT Be Going 3D - Updated
by Alex Billington
January 11, 2010
Source: Times Online
It has begun. Although we learned the other day that Clash of the Titans will (thankfully) not be going 3D, it looks like Universal has done just the opposite and decided to make another careless decision to convert one of their big summer movies to 3D. Hollywood is a greedy place and studios want as much cash as they can get, and when they see Avatar make over a billion, they want to get their hands on some of that money, too. Unfortunately, they're making some completely idiotic decisions, like approving the conversion of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood to 3D for a price tag of $8 million. Not too expensive, but let's see how it performs.
Buried in an article on the 3D craze in the UK's Times Online is a little blurb confirming what we first heard about in December. "Sir Ridley Scott has asked for a further $8m from his backer, Universal Films, to add an extra dimension to his untitled Robin Hood venture starring Russell Crowe in the lead role and Cate Blanchett as Maid Marian. Two versions of the film will be released in May." When we originally wrote that article late last year, it hadn't been confirmed that Ridley was actually going 3D, but now that Avatar has made boatloads of money, it sounds like Universal is happy to spend that $8 million to convert it now.
The article also talks about how Hollywood is indeed going 3D crazy. Bobby Jaffe, who runs one of the 3D conversion houses, explains: "we can turn an older film into 3-D in around 16 weeks." I'm not sure it'll be as high quality as Avatar, but you never know. "It mostly suits action films, such as Top Gun or The Matrix, but Avatar proved it’s best to use the technology to immerse the audience in the story rather than throw things at them. This is the new, more sophisticated era of 3-D." One of the smartest statements I've read. However, I don't think converting a movie to 3D after shooting it means it will look as good as Avatar did.
I'm not sure what everyone else thinks of this, but I'm not for it. I like 3D when it's used properly, which last year happened to only be in three movies: Coraline, Up, and Avatar. But converting a big action movie that was not shot for 3D after the fact is a terrible idea. It's not going to look right and after Avatar, people are going to notice how bad it looks (especially since almost everyone has seen Avatar by now). I suppose we'll find out on May 14th whether this really was a smart choice or not. Will you see Robin Hood in 3D?
Update: I was just informed by a Universal rep that this entire story is actually false and that Robin Hood will NOT be going 3D. Who knows whether they're just saying that and will later announce that it's going 3D, but oh well. For now, it sounds like it's not happening, and Robin Hood will remain 2D. Crisis averted!
20 Comments
1
Wow.
guh on Jan 11, 2010
2
My most anticipated movie of 2010... But I won't be watching it in 3D. It just doesn't seem like a 3D type flick. Stupid studios!
K on Jan 11, 2010
3
Leterrier told Universal that it wouldn't work and Universal said ok. This is Ridley's Scott wish too. Universal asked, and he went ahead and said ok.
Darunia on Jan 11, 2010
4
5
And let's be real here Alex...Avatar isn't nearly as good in 3D as some say, its implementation is vastly overrated in comparison to other movies. Marketing has done so much for the whole 3D fuss that it's unbelievable.
Darunia on Jan 11, 2010
6
Sorry i mixed it Alex :/ Trying to say in the end that if this was Scott's wish, then Universal shouldn't be blamed for a stupid decision.
Darunia on Jan 11, 2010
7
3D all the way. I'm not in the wussie headache brigade. Gamer for years. Bring it on!
Andrew on Jan 11, 2010
8
Sorry for the mix up. Was just trying to say that if Ridley is pushing for it then i don't think Universal should be blamed for a bad decision. Let's see how it works first. Cameron said converted movies would look good, and Beauty and the Beast in 3D has been getting some good impressions from people who've seen bits of it.
Darunia on Jan 11, 2010
9
Mistake. Hollywood needs to stop the 3D craze...it adds NOTHING to the movie and in some cases, takes away from it. Avatar was cool, but nothing about the 3D version was anything outstanding. The only reason films (Avatar especially) are making so much money and breaking records is because it cost your first born child to for just you to see a 3D IMAX movie. My friend paid $29 for his ticket to see Avatar, ridiculous!. I really hope this is a rumor. I trust Ridley fully, he is my favorite director and in my opinion one of the best Hollywood has ever seen, but I will not see this in 3D...sorry
one on Jan 11, 2010
10
Ew. No thanks. I think I may wait until DVD for this now. I know I could see it in non-3D, but not even seeing it in the theater will be my own personal protest.
Brandon on Jan 11, 2010
11
Yes! No 3D!
guh on Jan 11, 2010
12
Wonderful image for this article, by the way.
Voice of Reason on Jan 11, 2010
13
Awesome news!
Nasty Nate on Jan 11, 2010
14
No?
Daniel on Jan 11, 2010
15
Will they also release it in regular format? If so, Ill see that. Not going to see it in 3D. Ill wait for it on DVD if 3D is the only way in the theaters.
Tomi on Jan 11, 2010
16
PHEW! Great update.
Dark Fist on Jan 11, 2010
17
3D isn't going to become the norm its a joke.
d1rEct on Jan 11, 2010
18
good fucking news, I finally saw Avatar in 3-D and it was awful, the scenes with 3-D just felt crowded, and the glasses were a pain in the ass, and I'm so glad I don't have to suffer through Robin Hood in 3-D.
Xerxex on Jan 11, 2010
19
Thank God. This rekindled obsession with 3D has got to end. It was a gimmick in the 1950s and is so again. Just another way to get butts in seats. Most of the theaters showing the 3D films do not use a brighter bulb to compensate for the MAJOR image dimming caused by the polarized glasses. The films may look cool for certain scenes, but so much actual detail is lost simply because its just too darn murky. I went back to see Avatar in 2D at a digital theater and it was in many ways more impressive and less distracting. And as far as the push for 3D in the home theater being pushed by TV manufacturers at this years CES, you seriously would need a screen of 60'' or more for it to be even remotely close to worth it. I don't have space for a set that big and neither do most. I'm soooo over 3D films. Just go for a hike in the woods to get that experience people.
Drew on Jan 12, 2010
20
3D or not, I'm excited to see this movie. C'mon May 14! 😀
Francisca Susi on Jan 16, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FEATURED POSTS
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:
Add our posts to your Feedly › click here
Get all the news sent on Telegram 
LATEST TO WATCH