Topic: Everything is in 3D!

[TJ Spyke]

It's called Wrath of the Titans and supposed to come out in March 2012. Liam Neeson is confirmed to be retuning for it as Zeus. I can't confirm it, but I have also seen reports that it will be filmed in 2D and then converted to 3D. I guess they don't feel like renting or buying the 3D cameras.

[Stogi]

Yeah, I'm confused about that as well. Where's the link?

[TJ Spyke]

I found a link: http://www.movieweb.com/news/wrath-of-the-titans-to-be-converted-into-3d

Basically the director chose to shoot on 2D film because he wanted a "grittier" look (which is BS to me, he could have done that on digital cameras too). He didn't event want to have it in 3D, but Warner Bros. convinced him that the conversion process has improved. They also plan to convert it to 3D from the beginning rather than make the decision after the film is finished and 6 weeks before it is released (like with the first movie).

[Ian Sane]

To me filming a movie in 2D with the specific plans to convert it to 3D comes across like filming a movie in black and white and then colouring it later.  It just seems completely idiotic.

But I love how the director says he wanted a "grittier" look.  Dude, you're making the Clash of the Titans sequel!  You don't get to pull any of this artistic BS when you're making mainstream pandering trash.  I always find that hilarious when a director is all talking about motivating the actors and the subtle meaning of this or that and his film is complete ****.  And not "I'm trying to be artistic but I suck at it" **** but "the studio wanted to make a National Treasure sequel and assigned it to me" ****.  It's one step away from a guy directing commercials and then doing a full-of-himself pretentious interview about its artistic merit.

Wrath of the Titans is product.  You don't compromise the 3D effect to get a specific look for product.  You film it straight because it's going to be a **** film anyway and you might as well give its low brow audience exactly what they want.  With such a movie the only reason to make it look grittier is if that look is what sells.

[MaryJane]

Yeah why should a director try to be artistic? What sense does that make? Aronofsky shouldn't be artistic with the next Wolverine movie because anything Marvel is just fan service, and product pandering, or whatever. And of course a forum troll should be the one to tell a successful director what to do with his movie.

[Morari]

Aronofsky shouldn't have signed up for Wolverine. The X-Men franchise was milked dry two or three films back, as far as live-action adaptations go. Of course, from his point of view, I can see how trying to be artistic would be frustrating. Hardly no one has even heard of The Fountain, despite being one of the finest films, ever.

I think more to the point though, Clash of the Titans was an unneeded remake. It certainly doesn't need a sequel. All remakes are cash ins, and really don't deserve any assumption of artistic integrity. The fact that it's being put out in 3D at all doesn't help. If you want to see the craft at it's finest, go watch the original Clash of the Titans. The f/x in that are worth it if nothing else.

[MaryJane]

I don't mind remakes and I like 3D.

One of my favorite movies of all time is Gone With The Wind and I would love a remake done right. For me, a movie boils down to whether or not I'm entertained, then branches out into plot, character depth, lead female hotness, and cinematography. Whether it's a remake, shot in 3D, or a sequel, ultimately has nothing to do with the movie itself. The movie is trying to tell a story, and if it can do so while entertaining me, call me satisfied. Everything else is nitpicking from a Netflix generation who think themselves film critic purists. If you can't watch a movie simply for what it is without letting outside and (usually) irrelevant aspects influence you, you've already failed as a viable critic. I don't say that to insult anyone, but not liking a movie just because it's a remake, or in 3D, seems a little shallow to me.

[Stogi]

I agree with you to a point, but I would **** bricks if someone ever made a Groundhog's Day remake.

[Morari]

The movie is trying to tell a story, and if it can do so while entertaining me, call me satisfied.

Of course, you don't get that with remakes. The story has already been told, and told better at that. The only reason remakes exist is for the money. That's the problem with movie-goers today. They don't care about plotlines or characters. They just show up at the theater and arbitrarily pick something to watch with their friends. That's why Hollywood puts out nothing but popcorn thrillers and trash. That's why we get to see the same handful of lame actors in everything

Plenty of people have viable opinions of films, without being art critic and snobs. If you like 3D, then that's fine. I won't pay to see anything in 3D, nor will I indulge the industry by purchasing some overpriced television to "enjoy" the crap. I know that it's a fad and a gimmick, just like it is every thirty years when Hollywood tries it. Why? Because it doesn't work. It's distracting at best, and simply doesn't work at worst. Your eyes are made to focus on one thing at a time, which makes the illusion of 3D generally infective.

Now... I wouldn't consider myself a "critic". I'm simply discerning about what I spend my time on. Movies, books, video games, whatever. With films however, I not only watch them, I also study them. I make films as a near constant hobby, and even on commission from time to time. Just because I'm not as easily duped into favoring something as much as Joe Sixpack, doesn't mean it's my tastes that are lacking. I'd rather see original films, with new ideas that make me think. Remakes don't do that. If anything, they make mockeries of what are already good films. of course, that's what Joe Sixpack wants... He doesn't want to have to think, because that hurts.

And if it isn't a remake for old, then it's some lame comic book adaptation instead. I really have to wonder what Hollywood's going to do in another ten or twenty years when they completely run out of material to rape... are they going to start doing remakes of their remakes?

Note: I have a hard time believing that Gone with the Wind is one of your favorite films if you're so eager to see it butchered with modern ideas of entertainment. That said, it wouldn't be a remake so much as a new adaptation of the book. If you do truly enjoy the film for the story (and not just superficial things like "female hotness") then I'd suggest picking up a copy at the library. See, the originals are always better, even if they transcend mediums.

[NWR_insanolord]

I wouldn't say originals are necessarily always better, they just almost always are because of the circumstances of the remake. Most movies/TV shows/games could be done more effectively than the original, but you rarely see the most talented people at the helm of them.

[MaryJane]

If it wasn't for the 3DS, I might be more inclined to believe that 3D is a fad. But with 3D games, movie trailers, comedy shorts, and personal films to be in the hands of about 10million people at years end, I think it's here to stay this time.

There is some beautiful and absolutely stunning cinematography in GwtW that trumps anything I've seen in most movies to date, but there are also some shots and scenes where it's just like, why? There are also some inaccuracies that come from the source material that I'd like to see corrected as well. I wouldn't want the lines to change, but the movie's pace could be picked up with a few shaven scenes.

And nothing against you Morari, but I hate when people make the point that studios do things for money, yeah, no ****. It's the director, screenwriters, and actors, who are the artists and usually when they agree to a remake it's to pay homage to a classic, just like whem a musician covers a song.

And I cannot agree with the sentiment that the original is always better. The original Manchurian Candidate was crap, utterly broken, plot-hole filled crap. The premise was good, and there were some good moments, but overall, it was very bad. The remake wasn't exactly a masterpiece but it was at least, fluid and entertaining.

King Kong is another example. That movie has been remade like 4 times, and I think gotten better each time. I've seen all the remakes, but there was also a sequel or two in there, so I might be remembering wrong, but either the first b&w version sucked the big one or its sequel did, or something, but I remember one being crap and liking all the rest.

There's another glaring example on the tip of my brain, but it won't fall off... I would say the two Planet of the Apes movies were about equal, with the modern version getting a slight edge for being, well modern. Sci-Fi movies always benefit from better technology and understanding of the universe.

[TJ Spyke]

Speaking of 3D, Lucasfilm announced today that the 3D version of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace will be released on February 10, 2012. The reason is that it lets the movie avoid the summer blockbusters, and also give the company more time to make money from licensing deals through the rest of the year. The plan is to then release the five following movies a year apart each February (so Episode VI would be released in February 2017).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/03/us-starwars-idUSTRE72264G20110303

[Morari]

And nothing against you Morari, but I hate when people make the point that studios do things for money, yeah, no ****. It's the director, screenwriters, and actors, who are the artists and usually when they agree to a remake it's to pay homage to a classic, just like whem a musician covers a song.

No one cares to pay homage to the original. That's lip service they give to interviewers and fanboys. They make it because there is a pre-installed audience and guaranteed profit. I realize that no one in the industry is going to make a film because they love the medium. It's all profit. That said, you can still create a great experience and make money. Or not... since all Hollywood films are made at a loss due to their famous accounting tricks.

Musicians generally shouldn't cover songs either. Unless it's something fun to do as an encore at their concert or something. Otherwise, the results are generally disappointing, and often downright enraging when used as singles for music videos.

I would say the two Planet of the Apes movies were about equal, with the modern version getting a slight edge for being, well modern.

I can no longer discuss films with you.

Planet of the Apes was pretty much the turning point of Tim Burton's career. He went from fairly original and unique works to common dribble immediately. While some sequences of his adaptation were closer to that of the novel, the overall theme was completely lost however. The one thing that makes for good science fiction is a compelling plot that parallels modern issues. The original film had that in spades, while Burton's remake sacrificed it for contrived action. Hell, the make-up wasn't even as convincing.

[oohhboy]

I don't like remakes due to the fact they are almost universally crap. It's not unlike licensed games. They are destined to be crap. However there are steps down from even this.

Hollywood for some asinine reason feels the need to parallel import shows that are already in english like The Office, Top Gear, Who's line was it and Americanise them. I mean what? Is it not in english? Australia is not immune from this in the abortion that is Top Gear Australia.

Even worse than that they remake a perfectly good foreign film and **** that up. Example Infernal Affairs and the Departed. Sure they threw the HK film industry a "bone" by giving Scorsese Best adapted screenplay Then gave him best director for 151 minutes of bloated competent plagiarism?!. Bollocks. What?, is America deathly afraid of reading subtitles or you can't?

Then there is the French Taxi trilogy which got Americanised in 2004 staring Queen "Never funny or Talented" Latifah.

Oh course other countries remake and rip films off too, but damn it is that **** funny. You got things like Indian Super/Spiderman, Turkish Star Wars and as bad as there are, were entertaining in their incompetence.

As for 3D movies, Ian Sane said it best. If you want 3D, shoot it in 3D or don't shoot it at all.

[TJ Spyke]

A lot of times British humor is only funny to British people (and vice versa). Did they really need to make a UK version of Law & Order, for example? They are just taking season 1 plots and changing them to fit the UK legal system. Not every adaptation is good, but many are.

[Morari]

What?, is America deathly afraid of reading subtitles or you can't?

I don't think they can. Have you heard the way most of them talk? I'd be surprised if your typical American has more than a fourth grade reading level.

[MaryJane]

How can you decide that a remake is done solely for profit and not to pay homage? Again I say to you that directors, writers, and actors are artists, and like musicians love to pay tribute to those who came before them. Does it not matter that in Starsky & Hutch they brought the original actors back for the movie? Or is this just a referendum on Americans? I'm not going to argue this any further except to say that you're doing yourself a great disservice by prejudging everything, but it's your life so do with it what you will.

As for the Star Wars movies, I'll be glad to see the 3D release. Space in 3D is always a great viewing experience, and I can already think of multiple shots in episode IV that would greatly benefit from 3D (the other five movies aren't as prevelant in my mind).

[BlackNMild2k1]

A lot of times British humor is only funny to British people (and vice versa). Did they really need to make a UK version of Law & Order, for example? They are just taking season 1 plots and changing them to fit the UK legal system. Not every adaptation is good, but many are.

Brititsh Humor, British Accent & British Slang don't always translate over very well. I've tried watching some UK shows a while back, and I couldn't get into them because either couldn't understand what they were saying or I just didn't get what they meant. Other shows I understood just fine.

Shows like Skins on MTV didn't need a tamer remake where the kids talk almost the same anyway. They didn't even Americanize the show.

But since we are off the topic of 3D, I'll just throw this in too; What is up with these stations that are remaking UK shows in American shows and then calling them Network Originals?

example.
Being Human (a UK remake) is now a SyFy Original - does that strictly mean that Syfy is producing the show internally? because they sure as hell didn't come up with the idea, so to me that means that it's not all that original (even if it is a pretty entertaining show).

[TJ Spyke]

Maybe it's the same logic that Cartoon Network uses when they air "new" episodes of Family Guy (after they aired on Fox). Since the remakes are technically new shows, I guess that is why they can call it original. At least that is why I think they do it.

[nickmitch]

At least [adult swim] acknowledges that it's been aired previously. They advertise "all new, never before seen on this network episode of Family Guy!" SyFy is just flat out lying.

[TJ Spyke]

But the shows are technically original, it is a new version created specifically for Syfy. So it's not lying (it would only be lying if they were taking the UK version and just airing that).

[BlackNMild2k1]

New show using the same name. Same characters but with different actors. The same plots on similar sets marketed to a new audience on a different network in a different country.

their is technically nothing original about it.
It's still a good show and I would have never watched it if they hadn't brought it over, so I'm not knocking the show in any way, just the use of "Original" in it's advertising, as "original" obviously can't be referring to the show itself but as to the production of it for that network which is just a little misleading.

[Ian Sane]

The thing with remakes is typically it isn't like some director with artistic intentions approaches the studio with the idea of remaking a classic film.  It probably does happen but that would be rare.  In the case of Clash of the Titans, considering what the resulting film turned out like, I think it's clearly an example of a studio wanting to go with a pre-existing safe idea to cash in on recent trends.  Remakes and sequels are often given the green light because they're "safe" projects with an assumed existing audience.  Same with films based on licenced properties.

The Clash of the Titans remake is widely considered to be junk.  It's a **** film.  No one with artistic intentions would then try to get in as the director.  It wouldn't even be their idea, it would be the studio wanting to make a sequel.  The incentive to direct such a film would be entirely career-oriented.  The experience would help you get your foot in the door for later work, perhaps including more artistic films.  Having a box office success would also help your profile in Hollywood as well.

If I was in such a position I would consider it like a job.  In that case my goal would be to get the film in on budget and give the target audience what they want to see: an entertaining popcorn flick.  Therefore having really good looking 3D would be a top priority since that's one of the selling points.  It's a sequel to a critical disaster.  Everyone else involved is only thinking about money or they wouldn't make the film in the first place.  The director should have pride in his work but not compromise the commercial potential of the film.  This is a work-for-hire project and he should treat it like that.  And the thing is this doesn't even mean his film has to suck.  Coherrent story, good pacing, exciting set pieces, happy ending = good popcorn flick.

I think considering what this film is a sequel to it would be incredibly naive to assume this is anything but a cash grab.  It's damn obvious.  And those involved should know that.  The screenwriter can consider this a work-for-hire like the director where furthering his career is an obvious incentive.  And actors?  There are tons of actors who do it for the money and especially for the FAME.  Some actors are artists.  Some actors are attention whores and staring in a big budget blockbuster will make them rich and famous.  Would you call actors who later show up on reality shows artists?  Or is it more likely that they need the money or just crave attention so much that they'll do anything to remain famous?  There are a lot of people in the entertainment industry that are just doing a job or have other intentions beyond artistic ones.

Regarding musicians it is usually pretty easy to spot whether the choice of a cover is for artistic purposes or not.  If it's just an album track and they're doing something really different with it, maybe they just like the song.  But there are pop artists for which their first single is a cover song and it's a really well known hit.  Bullshit that that's for artistic purposes.  When Nirvana covered Lake of Fire, it was this obscure song by an obscure band that most people had never heard of.  Meanwhile Kylie Minogue's career got going with a cover of "Loco-Motion" a song that had already been a number one single TWICE before she covered it and her cover sounded incredibly similar to the original.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I would have to agree with everything said in that post.

You do films like this to give your self the credibility, name-sake and finances to do the films you really want to make.

Look at someone like Guillermo Del Torro. He is currently signed on to do The Hobbit. It's not something he's been creatively wanting to explore, but it's a guaranteed hit as long as it everything it's supposed to be (I'm not saying that he didn't have input on the script or that it is purely a cash grab, just that it's guaranteed money to put in his creative freedom bucket). The Hobbit will rope in all the LoTR fans and then some which will give him the financial freedom to move onto projects that he's been wanting to do like At The Mountains of Madness which he will have the creative freedom to explore any which way he sees fit.

[MaryJane]

HTC is making a glasses-free 3D smartphone called the EVO 3D.

It has a 1.2Ghz (single-core?) CPU, 1GB RAM, 1080p video out, 1.3MP front facing camera, and 5MP dual rear cameras for 3D pictures and video. It will also be launching with Blockbuster and Youtube 3D apps, and runs Android.

Those are some pretty killer specs, on a phone with a recognizable name, by a company building quite a reputation for itself. The video out and 5MP cameras put it above the 3DS in terms 3D functionality and content, respectively.

Hopefully Blockbuster doing mobile 3D movie delivery will force Netflix's hand, and this phone and the 3DS lead the new 3D revolution. This phone is rumored to be revealed at CTIA and I hope it is releasing this year.

The evolution of mobile devices could be what finally brings 3D out of the niches it has been stuck in since its inception many moons ago. Mobile 3D actually works better (in terms of marketability and ease of use) than its big screen brothers and will foster the technology to make it 3D as common as HD. Maybe...