Louis Leterrier Blasts 'Horrible' 3D in His 'Clash of the Titans' Remake

May 28, 2013
Source: HuffPo

Clash of the Titans

It's been a few years since the remake of Clash of the Titans from director Louis Leterrier hit the big screen, and while he may not be fully recovered from the critical lashing the film took, the filmmaker has come to terms with one of the film's shortcomings and talks about it openly and honestly. One of the most highly criticized aspects of Clash of the Titans was the abysmal 3D conversion done in post-production, and now Leterrier has spoken out about the decision to convert the film to 3D, and talks about how it was nothing more than a gimmick to boost box office and get more cash from the audience. Sounds about right.

Leterrier recalls his attitude at the time the film came out at The Huffington Post:

"It was a very tough experience. I was literally thrown under the bus for something that … I still have a good relationship with Warner Bros., but at one point it was like, 'Yeah, Louis chose the 3D.' And I was like, 'No, guys, I didn't choose the 3D. I actually told you it's not working. I couldn't control it. I said don't do it.'"

So what does Leterrier really think about the 3D conversion? Well, it's not pretty:

"It was famously rushed and famously horrible. It was absolutely horrible, the 3D. Nothing was working, it was just a gimmick to steal money from the audience. I'm a good boy and I rolled with the punches and everything, but it's not my movie. Clash of the Titans is not my movie. And ultimately that's why I didn't do the sequel.

It's a fun action movie, all in all. Some people are really happy with the movie. I tried to do the best I could, but it was not the best experience of my life, I must say. I wasn't protected. Talking about surrounding yourself with the right people -- I felt like I was really thrown at the wolves."

Honestly, the 3D isn't the only part of the problem, so I'm wondering if there's anything else in the film that makes Leterrier say, "Clash of the Titans is not my movie." If anything, we're glad Leterrier is honest enough to speak his mind and let everyone know what went wrong with the film. It's sad that an opportunity to remake Clash of the Titans was wasted like that, especially with the blatant attempt to get cash from audiences. Thankfully, Hollywood has mostly learned their lesson and the technology for conversation has gotten much better, so hopefully these kind of issues don't come around again. Thoughts?

Find more posts: 3D News, Discuss, Movie News



I thought it was already known that the movie released isn't his cut. Didn't he have a bunch of more footage with character development and considerably different plotlines that they made him cut because they wanted to get to the action faster? Idk how good the character development, or the other plotlines, would've been.... but I'm positive he said they made him cut and change a significant portion of the film, and the one released is not his vision of the film.

Chazzy on May 28, 2013


Star Trek Into Darkness was merely a passable 3d post conversion...but also a balant cash grab. It added nothing and honestly, seeing it in 2d as well, it took away from the overall experience felt when seeing it normally.

Linkfx on May 28, 2013


Blatant cash grab? I don't think so. The movie was in space with lasers and explosions and shit. If that doesn't demand 3D I don't know what does.

Jon Odishaw on May 28, 2013


THANK YOU, i would have been pissed if they hadent converted it into 3D. Some people, like me, love going and seeing movies in 3D, many other people refuse to go see 3D movies. Star Trek Into Darkness needed that 3D boost. What did it take away Linkfx cause i only saw things that it added to; when the ship jump into warp it looked amazing in 3D, Inside the warp tunnel was amazing, Kirk and Kahn flying through space looked amazing in 3D. Linkfx i feel as though u may need to wear actually glasses underneath your 3D glasses, for you are not seeing what 3D has added to our movie experience. Saying that, Clash of the Titans had nothing for me to remember in 3D, i didnt take anything away from it like i did with star trek.

Schuyler on May 28, 2013


Did you actually see Clash of the Titans in 3D?? I ask you that because you definitely would have remembered it. The 3d post conversion was so god awful it essentially ruined the film, which is basically what this interview is all about. So if you saw it, you would have remembered how bad it was, it was godawful. As for my stance on 3d, i love it. I have an active shutter set up in my home on a beautiful led screen. I definitely prefer watching natively shot 3d movies or cartoons like Avatar or Up. I even like some post conversions like I stated above to SV7, Jurassic Park, but also Captain America, Immortals and I thought Iron Man 3 was decent. The fully CGI shots in Star Trek Into Darkness were great, because they were most likely rendered in 3d. The live action intensive shots with insane fast edits and shaky sets and camera moves however felt cut out in layers and not intricately well done like it deserved to be. But mostly, it just looked like flat layers cut out in depth on top of other flat layers, in particular the sequence where the ship is falling back to earth and scotty and kirk are hanging on for dear life. They have hard edges and seem to pop out unnaturally...a common trait of a rushed 3d conversion job.

Linkfx on May 28, 2013


Yea i saw it and in 3D... thats what i said. I dont remember things I dont like... why would you do that to yourself. That was almost three yrs ago!!!! I also have a 3D TV, and i have almost every single 3D movie too (INTERNET). I had no problem with the 3D, even in those scenes of the movie... i hate nit picking/pickers

Schuyler on May 29, 2013


Sorry, I guess I incorrectly assumed I was having a mature discussion here.

Linkfx on May 29, 2013


When did you think that, this is the internet dummy!!!!! I have given up on reason and trying to talk to people in ways that may change their opinions. Most people on the god for saken internet are not willing to listen, so i have no tolerance any more for people shit talking things I like. Be it Star Trek or f*%king tranformers Im done. MAybe if i though u were trying to have a mature conversation i wouldnt have been thrown off by the by the number times you said God Awful in your first paragraph, and the fact you never capitalized the D in 3D!!!!!! This is the sort of shit people will think about when ur internet avatar dies!!!!!!!

Schuyler on May 29, 2013



Guest on May 29, 2013


What Mr. Garrison, you want to get in on this. Im pissed right now so say what you will. Hopefully by the time ill read it ill realize that this is all a waste

Schuyler on May 29, 2013


The problem is is that I liked the film, i never thought it was ruined, I just prefer it in 2d because the unique way the film is directed with crazy camera moves and blurring doesn't for the most part serve a 3d conversion. I liked all the same stuff that you mentioned above that was in 3d, space ships, warp trails, crashes etc.

Linkfx on May 29, 2013


Thanks for the laugh.

Guest on May 29, 2013


It's not about being in space. It's about how it's shot. The furious action did not suit 3D. Even Michael Bay toned down the crazy camera moves and ultra short edits for Dark of the Moon. My screening on Star Trek in 3D was terrible. I think they should have really dialled the 3D down on many shots as DOTM and Iron Man 3 seem to.

SV7 on May 28, 2013


Exactly what i was getting at. The editing and shooting style/ultra wide anamorphic lenses and shakeyness made the live action set piece action sequences inchoherent. I saw it in both 2d and 3d and i simply preferred the 2d. Also it wasn't done well. In the non-cg shots it was quite obvious things were roughly cut out and placed in flat layers at different points of space, no subtlety of real 3d. Jurassic Park is a great example of doing a post-conversion properly, with great depth and it's edited in a way to let us ingest naturally what we are seeing, which translates great to 3d. Star Trek into Darkness is a great film, I really enjoyed it and I thought it was beautiful, but i feel that the 3d version was just not good.

Linkfx on May 28, 2013


You both have the right to your opinions. But your both wrong.

Schuyler on May 29, 2013


I just saw it in IMAX 3D (70mm) yesterday, I was sitting in one of the best seats, and I have to agree it was a pretty bad 3D conversion. Some shots were not even aligned properly, others were strangely blurred. One camera pan was so strobby you could barely decipher the picture. The 3d layers on the red planet at the beginning were not cut properly because too complex. Most of shots relied too much on a shallow depth of field that doesn't work too well in 3D. Faces features didn't appear 3D in closeups. You can tell the director wasn't thinking 3D and that there were probably no experienced stereographer on set. It all looked like an afterthought. Saying this I'm a 3D fanatic and own most 3D Blurays, but sorry this wasn't a very good 3D experience for me.

Roger on May 29, 2013


That's actually a fair point. One problem I did have with it is that it was far too flashy.

Jon Odishaw on May 29, 2013


I feel like if anything is bad in a movie, the internet takes it as if everything having to do with that problem has made it all horrible. Thats not the case... you all talk about blurred here and not popping there. I can give you guys some of those things, mainly because thats the WAY THE MOVIE WAS SHOT!!!!!! Yes some thing didnt pop, yes bad 3D. But some things being out of fouces and bad camera pans... those arnt fails those are just different directing styles, DAMNIT!!!! There were just some many cool things about the Star Trek 3D, the plants at the end, jumping into warp drive, the ship falling, etc. Stop focusing on scenes that really dont need 3D to begin with. Geez

Schuyler on May 29, 2013


I liked it a lot, but the 3D was incredibly bad.

OfficialJab on May 28, 2013


Travis Beacham wrote the original script, that was said to be fully entrenched in Greek Mythology with all kinds of mythological creatures, characters, and allusions. Apparently it was budgeted at $250 million, which was way too high. A couple of guys were brought in to cut the script down in scope and streamline it a bit. BEYOND THAT, during filming there were plenty of on-set re-writes and things of that nature. Over the course of production, they changed both the romantic lead(from Andromeda to Io) and they changed the ending. Originally, Zeus wasn't the one aiding Perseus the entire time, it was other Gods. There was this whole subplot among the Gods that involved them all sort of plotting and scheming against one another. So in the original ending, Zeus and Perseus didn't reconcile at all, and Io wasn't revived, Perseus hooked up with Andromeda at the end and then proceeded to sort of declare war on the Gods. That ending would have sent the sequel in an entirely different direction. I'd love to see Leterrier get a chance to maybe complete his director's cut of the film....but oh well. Bottom line is that there were FAR too many cooks in the kitchen for this film.

Chris Groves on May 28, 2013


Good for Monsieur Letterier.

DAVIDPD on May 28, 2013


Iron Man 3 was so subtle it added nothing. A joke. Star Trek into Darkness was HORRIBLE. Movement in the image shimmered everywhere. Even still shots of characters talking had their mouths shimmering distractingly. Was this just my screening? The frequent, quick camera movement and action also did not suit 3D. It was hard to watch. The only reason I went 3D was because the larger screens show only 3D. BUT, once you put the glasses on, the screen looks small anyway. I'd rather watch a movie on a giant screen properly than put glasses on and have it shrunk down. I wish 3D would go away. Basically I got charged more for a worse experience. How does that make sense???

SV7 on May 28, 2013


3D a gimmick? Say whaaaat?!

grimjob on May 28, 2013


3D helped to enhance a movie of rehashed ideas.......Avatar. When used correctly it can really improve the viewing experience, but we all know its about grabbing the extra cash. Trash like Clash of the Titans is a prime example, using 3D action to gloss over a poor script.

Steven on May 29, 2013


If it's post converted I do what all of you should be doing... WATCH IT WITHOUT 3D. You morons are the reason they continue releasing this crap in 3D... You bitch and bitch and bitch about how bad the 3D is even though you've seen 1,000 post converted movies knowing they're bad. The more you support them the more theyre going to continue converting them... They make more money with this gimmick while our pockets suffer and we sit through terrible 3D movies. The power is in YOUR hands... Don't support it and tell your friends to do the same and maybe one day they will make movies how we want them to be made.

rolyjimenez on May 29, 2013


In response to this interview.... We all knew Clash was having director/studio differences but god damn they shitted on his film. I think this was the last post converted film I saw and hated it. So much so that when I heard they were creating a sequel I cringed. This is why bootlegging is still a problem. Nobody wants to risk $15 a ticket to go see a post converted 3d shitfest. Hollywood is fighting and making deals with our government to stop pirating... they should stop making movies that suck to make a quick buck and worry more about quality and content...

rolyjimenez on May 29, 2013


Come to terms with the shortcomings of the film and bashes the 3D conversion...? Has Leterrier come to terms with his own shortcomings as a director? Clash was not that great a film. He ruined Incredible Hulk. The Hulk we wanted to see was in Avengers.

Smash on May 29, 2013


Nothing tops the old Three Stooges 3D.

mooreworthy on May 29, 2013


Bad 3D was the least of the problems with the Clash remake. Start with wooden Worthington.

mistermysteryguest on May 29, 2013


The movie was just bad, regardless of the 3D debacle. The script was laughable, dare I say stupid and acting not much better. I was super excited to see this and the sequel. Both deserve a Razzie. I cannot believe Hollywood thinks we out in the world want or deserve to see this kind of negligent production!

Jon on Jun 3, 2013

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram