This is topic Clash Of The Titans in 3D? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002311

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-25-2010, 01:22 AM:
 
Our booker today mentioned this possibility. I know they were thinking about it, but did they go through with it?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-25-2010, 10:24 AM:
 
I read that they were doing some tests and were going to make a decision by the end of the week.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-25-2010, 08:58 PM:
 
Horrible idea. Train your dragon comes out the same day and Alice will only be 3 weeks old.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-25-2010, 09:04 PM:
 
I think it's a fantastic idea. We need some 3-D bombs.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-25-2010, 11:05 PM:
 
If Clash goes 3-D most likely that release date will change to late April. Piranha 3-D has been moved to the fall again.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-26-2010, 11:09 AM:
 
You mean Piranha 3D will run against Jackass 3D?
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-26-2010, 02:18 PM:
 
By then we may not have to worry about it as more 3-D screens become available.

Piranha 3-D new date is August 27Th.

Jackass 3-D is October 15th. It will be running against Saw 7 in 3-D the following week.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-26-2010, 02:26 PM:
 
It's funny how we always thought that for a movie to be 3D it had to be, you know, shot in 3-D.

Now it seems you can decide a few months before opening if you want it "3D" or not

Already done with G-Force, and now Pirahna, i.e., that were shot in 2D and then "converted". Hope they don't convert Titans. Or at least that they do a ton of reshoots and really nice work on converting the rest (which, BTW, should take many months, not just a couple).



Oh, well. Hollywood managed to kill 3D twice before with crappy 3D movies, some of them shot with crappy 3D systems or presented with crappy quality just to make a quick buck.

But we know that won't happen today thanks to digital perfection, of course.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2010, 06:21 PM:
 
I guess we'll know when 3D has gone mainstream when they stop making films with "3D" in the title. (And when the trailers stop using the hack phrase "a whole NEW dimension!")
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-26-2010, 07:17 PM:
 
You have to remember the age group they are pushing this stuff to. We know this has all been done before but the 18 to 25 age group were not even born yet when the last true attempt at 3-D was done. I don't count the Imax or the anaglyphic because not everyone lives around an Imax 3-D and the red and blue crap was well.....crap.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 01-27-2010, 12:57 PM:
 
I read that The Hollywood Reporter says this is happening along with the last 2 Harry Potter movies. The release date is being pushed back to 4/2.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-29-2010, 01:32 PM:
 
Being in 3D will make me go see it while I would otherwise have waited for BR. I think it's a smart move. Also the "aftermarket 3D" was considerably better in the last Harry Potter than it was in Superman Returns. It's not hard to believe they have made additional improvements since then so it might end up being really good...visually anyway.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-29-2010, 08:07 PM:
 
Titans also has an awesome trailer which will really help, if Warners can get that in 3D in front of Avatar and Alice as soon as possible it will build up loads of interest.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-29-2010, 08:55 PM:
 
Just talked to our WB rep, inquiring about new posters with a 3D tag and updated release date, and she said it is not 100% that it will be 3D, yet.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2010, 12:56 AM:
 
WTF.

Unless Clash of the Titans was filmed natively in dual film strip 3D (or dual digital video stream 3D) the studio should NOT bother with trying to crap out a fake 3D release.

The pseudo 3D garbage didn't work well with Superman Returns or that Harry Potter installment. What makes the studio bosses believe the fake 3D will work this time?
 

---

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 01-30-2010, 03:36 AM:
 
Isn't Alice filmed in 2D and converted afterwards into 3D as well? At least that's what I read, and also that it was because Mr. Burton wanted it so. Go figure. I think it'll be worth something to see how those two methods relly differ.

In Finland we got the email on thursday, saying Titans goes 3D and that's it. And opening doesn't have to move more than two weeks...
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-30-2010, 04:08 AM:
 
Bobby

You extremely over-estimate the average cinema-goer's ability to know what is what.

Sad, but true. Their $5m outlay to convert will gain them a good $50m to $100m more. It's a good move.

Now, if you really enjoy the idea of Clash in 2D...rent the DVD. Without Ray Harryhausen's brilliance, this version's going to need every little bit of help it can get.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2010, 11:19 AM:
 
It doesn't matter to me who tries "converting" their new movie from 2D to 3D, the process just does not work well. When the 3D does work the 3D objects only look like flat 2D card board cut out objects floating over another 2D surface. And that only equals crap.

Any movie meant to be in 3D at all needs to be natively photographed in 3D from the outset. Not only do you have the issues of the floating cardboard cut out syndrome, but any shots with low depth of field effects will be very difficult to manage. Edge detail on all objects throughout the scene must be very sharp so they can be extracted from the background more precisely. This is the only reason why The Nightmare Before Christmas had any 3D that worked at all. Most of the objects on screen were sharply photographed with deep focus through the scenes. And there was next to nothing in terms of motion blur.

Alice In Wonderland might possibly work in 3D because so much of its content is many isolated objects composed in CGI. Still, that isn't going to overcome the card board cut out effect because every isolated object has its own level of depth -something which you're not going to see unless the object was photographed with two camera eye views.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-30-2010, 12:38 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

card board cut out effect

---

So it wouldn't be hard at all for them to make a Southpark Sequal in 3-D.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-30-2010, 11:07 PM:
 
Southpark in 3D would make far more logical sense than trying to convert a live action 2D movie into 3D. At least the Southpark CGI content can be arranged discretely into left eye and right eye views. Not so easy for the live action 2D stuff.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-31-2010, 07:44 PM:
 
Received confirmation today...it'll be in 3D.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 02-01-2010, 01:36 AM:
 
I can't see Southpark doing a 3D movie, unless they were making fun of 3D.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 02-01-2010, 03:39 PM:
 
Just like the Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special, it was in 3D on ice!

I think cartoons, especially digital cartoons where you can go back and easily manipulate the files, would be the only conversions that would really work out well when going from 2D to 3D after the fact.
 

---

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 02-14-2010, 07:56 AM:
 
IMDB confirms that it will be 3D released April 2nd.
Demetris
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2010, 11:26 AM:
 

quote: Elise Brandt

---

Isn't Alice filmed in 2D and converted afterwards into 3D as well? At least that's what I read, and also that it was because Mr. Burton wanted it so.

---