03-31-2010, 02:07 PM
This link is to a review an internet portal critic made of Clash of the Titans, a film that was shot in 2D and quickly "sterotized" after the success of Avatar:
I was afraid of just this. I saw Alice in Wonderland and, frankly, was very underwhelmed with the 3D, but felt that at least marginally, it added a bit to the whole experience, not much, but enough to say that it was better than in 2D. Now come all the flurry of productions that were ordered to be turned into 3D by a horde of greedy and ignorant studio suits, and the only looser will be 3D itself...
03-31-2010, 03:19 PM
3D in post is only one thing. Cinematographers will be specially pleased by this:
So you will apparently be able to "Convert DVDs and videos into a magical 3D experience".
Then there's the thing with 3D @ home with mismatched convergence & unsuitable FOV.
Then there's the thing with filmmakers attitude that 2D and 3D filmmaking are differentiated only by the number of cameras.
And the list goes on...
04-02-2010, 05:43 AM
The review on MSN came to similar conclusions for Clash of the Titans (CoT).
LIFTED “3D” QUOTES FROM ARTICLE
“I think there's a new-Hollywood spin on Euripides' maxim: Whom the gods would destroy, they first translate their movie into 3-D in post-production. "Clash of the Titans" was not shot in 3-D or for 3-D, and was notoriously extruded into the third dimension in post-production by outsourced effects companies.
The end result is a film so distracting, so diluted, so altered and amputated in the name of making a bigger, better buck (Warner Brothers likes the cha-ching sound the cash register makes when it can charge the premium prices for 3-D), that I almost, almost, wanted to see it in 2-D before reviewing it. My experience of "Clash of the Titans" was truly that dimmed (literally) by the shabby retrofitted effects and the darker, drearier projection that the technical needs of 3-D imposed on the film. “
“And yet, even if 3-D didn't make the film so dank and drab that it looked like you were watching it through three feet of bong water”
“By and large, 3-D is a gimmick. But even then there's both an art and an artifice to picking shots for it, and "Clash of the Titans" suffers for having the third dimension clumsily bolted on to it after the fact. Still, it's not as if "Clash of the Titans" is some popcorn masterpiece undone by the 3-D manipulations of its parent studio;”
CREDIT: James Rocchi's writings on film have appeared at Cinematical.com, Netflix.com, SFGate.com and in Mother Jones magazine
So Rudi, you make a good point. However, I am VERY encouraged by these types observations made by the various reviewers and punters, because the studios cannot ignore this. In other words, OK so studios have taken a chance on “Dimensionalizing” 2d movies, and will learn to their cost that the punters are now too savvy to be taken in by this. And to their cost that they will also learn that if they want to tap into the 3D “buck” then you have to do it right, with skill, knowledge, finesse and imagination. This is no different from the early days of film making, and it does genuinely seem that QUALITY in 3d production does indeed translate to a movie being well received and hence translate to Box office revenues. [I have yet to see AVATAR (shame on me!), but clearly the script is not that great, but good enough that the punters did everybody proud.].
The fact that the punters are now so visually savvy with effects and 3D immersive experiences, that we have now produced a generation of effects junkies and FX connoisseurs. This bodes well for the future of S-3D in the cinema, because “the suits” (as you say) will make sure that it’s done right, right from the start next time, as otherwise, it’s gonna hurt the bottom line!
P.S. having some one's hair (style) float nine feet behind an actor's head is not cool, even the "suits" can understand that one...