3D filmmaking might have been the box that Pandora opened with Avatar, but it’s not going away anytime soon, as two more genre-friendly flicks are getting the three-dimensional treatment.
Deadline has reported that Michel Gondry’s Green Hornet has been pushed back from December to January 2011 to be converted to 3D. According to what Sony’s Jeff Blake told them, this tactic is “doubling down” for the studio. “We’re investing more in the film to have it 3D. We’ve seen part of the movie. We love it. We believe in it. Whoever is spreading these rumors has not seen it. We’re going to finish Green Hornet in 3D and take 9 months to do it right.”
Additionally, Deadline has stated that Avatar: The Last Airbender will also be in 3D, which will likely cost anywhere from $5 to $10 million to convert. If you take a look at this trailer, it’s already visually pretty powerful, so 3D might be even hit sensory overload levels. That said, Mike Fleming does rightly state that because 3D movies kick a price hike around the $3 mark, it might cost a bit to get the image overhaul. What say you, Rama readers? You excited to see the 3D revolution, or do you think it’s not worth the price?
[Image via Radar]
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:54 pm
So, apparently all the bad press and word-of-mouth on the “Clash of the Titans” conversion job fell upon deaf ears. They saw the opening weekend grosses and don’t expect that audiences will remember that the bad feelings that generated.
Sadly, they’re probably right. And by flooding the market these sort of short-sighted after-the-fact conversions, they’ll make the audience completely forget just how good movies that were shot with the intention of being in 3-D can look.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
You know, they can make “Avatar: The Last Airbender” in 4D, but as long as it’s written and directed by one-trick-pony M. Night Shyamalan all the added glitz and glaze ain’t gonna make it watchable.
Strong scripts and competent direction will trump any 3D tricks these studios throw at us.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Looks like Hollywood got bitten by the 3D bug again, the smart thing to do is leave them as they are and they make it big in the box offices then convert them to 3D.
April 23rd, 2010 at 5:12 pm
As usual hollywwod gets the wrong message. Avatar was a success because cameron shot his film with 3-d as the final intention, and framed, edited and composed every shot with 3d in mind. The result was osmething that blew a lot of people away. Slapping cheesy 3-d effects on afilm where the director, editors and production designers nevr factored it into their choices is cheesy gimmickry. So much for artfully integrating the technology. This kind of crap will kill 3-d dead.
April 25th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I dunno… 3D hasn’t exactly bothered me in any of the recent films I’ve seen. In some cases, specfically Avatar and Coraline, it definitely enhanced it. In other cases, such as Up, it didn’t really add anything. It wasn’t a problem, it just wasn’t necessary.
I think it could greatly enhance Avatar : The Last, er… Sorry, I mean simply “The Last Airbender” (I hate that, because the Avatar cartoon was awesome and that came first) or it could be a case of sensory overload as David suggests. Either way, the trailers are looking great. Surprisingly great, given that it’s a Shama-lama-ding-dong movie.
I don’t like his stuff generally, but he’s working off of excellent source material. He’s captured the look of it all, now I just hope the actors are good and the scripting is decent. I’m still bothered by the all-caucasian casting, but the girl playing Katara looks and sounds good. The others, I can’t say yet. I am worried that the film will lack the sense of humor that the cartoon always had.
April 25th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
3-D is a nice little diversion that will attract attention, but so far I’ve not seen a single film that got so much better by being done in 3-D.
It’s done solely to draw more people into the theaters to see something they can’t get at home, EXACTLY what it was for in the first place fifty-plus years ago.
I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t bother to se 3-D prints anymore. Because of the difference in price of theaters down here, a 3-D presentation can cost TWICE what a 2-d version can, even more if we wait for the second-run house to get the film. And I don’t feel deprived at all.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:42 am
converting a film to 3-D is a terrible move. Either shoot it in 3-D or don’t bother. 3-D shouldn’t be about things poking out of the screen but be an immersive experience which can only be achieved by filming it in 3-D to begin with.
Hollywood are getting behind 3-D so much because they believe it stops piracy as they cannot be replicated at home at the moment.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
What a twist!
April 26th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Hollywood learns nothing, as usual.