Comments on: Hollywood Tells Directors: “You Want To Direct This Movie? You’re Doing It In 3D, Motherfucker!”

By: rodrigoperez

rodrigoperez — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:39:22 +0000

@Mark A. Fedeli

lol, amen.

By: Mark A. Fedeli

Mark A. Fedeli — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:31:11 +0000

i just found myself nodding my head in agreement with both Michael Bay and James Cameron. shoot me now.

By: Trippman

Trippman — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:42:39 +0000

"
"A Beautiful Mind" or "Hunger" aren't tentpole movies, and making them 3D would really do nothing, in fact, it would be a disservice
"

actually, Avatar argues that ALL movies should have always been in 3D. Not just escapism entertainment

By: Raz Cunningham

Raz Cunningham — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:33:34 +0000

there is something to be said for the kinds of movies being made (converted) in 3D; they ARE tentpoles. If you look at the numbers, and I've been studying these things since "Avatar" took a shit all over the cinemas, these tentpole films would make about the same #s in just 2D; 5% give or take. Compare these to movies to last year's movies, compare the releasing studios and the projects themselves, they're not that different.

"A Beautiful Mind" or "Hunger" aren't tentpole movies, and making them 3D would really do nothing, in fact, it would be a disservice. I'm not an elitist, I just love film. Most of the people I know are Transformer-type movie lovers, and not one of them is drawn to see a movie just because its in 3D. I'm still looking for someone who is, so if you find them, let me know!

By: SK

SK — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:01:44 +0000

So $3 or $4 million. That's not much at all.
How could we not expect the producers of Clash of the Titans not to jump at that? It's not going to be a great film anyway. The CGI-fest might as well have some cheap 3D that looks decent and maybe make 30% more. It'll earn $3-4 million more than it would in 2D for sure.

Even if it's not, as Cameron says as great of a product (or very close) compared to shooting in 3D, who cares? It's just so much cheaper, why wouldn't they do it for some of these movies. Why wouldn't the studio behind 'Alice' do it?

Why spend 2-1/2 years on a hollow story full of CGI when you can spend 1 year?

Maybe having to pay $4 more will just be a tipping point for people when it comes to blockbusters, and the 3D will slow down.

I'm kind of looking forward to the 3D craze...it'll probably be an indication of what is not worth seeing.

By: John

John — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:25:57 +0000

It costs about 3-4 million to turn a 2D film into 3D.

Shooting a film in 3D adds a lot more than to the cost of production. It's about money. If they can make it cheaper, then they can make more money.

Most of the audiences won't notice the difference in the crappier 3D anyway. This is the modern day equivalent to colourising black and white films.

By: Trippman

Trippman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:14:32 +0000

"You can’t just shit out a 3D movie"

"You’re doing it in 3D, motherfucker!"

2 of a kind? 2 of a kind!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:54:40 +0000

Sad, sad, sad.

By: SK

SK — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:45:48 +0000

'Alice in Wonderland' would have been atop the box-office these past three weeks regardless of 3D. Maybe it wouldn't have the $250 it does now, but it would be close enough.

The budget was $200? So how much would it have been without the 3D treatment, $175?

I can't see 'Clash of the Titans' tearing up the box-office. Hopefully it will be a downer for 3D advocates.