Clash of the Titans remake trailer

[keg in kc]

[Frazod]

Meh. I actually liked Percy Jackson better, and that was lame.

[keg in kc]

[Deberg_1990]

. The director of this flick basically saying the 3D in this was crap and 3D is a Hollywood money grab. Of course it is.....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3333311.html


I have to say, you seem like a much happier human being right now than when I spoke to you for "Clash of the Titans."
It was a very tough experience. I was literally thrown under the bus for something that ... I still have a good relationship with Warner Bros., but at one point it was like, "Yeah, Louis chose the 3D." And I was like, "No, guys, I didn't choose the 3D. I actually told you it's not working. I couldn't control it. I said don't do it."

The 3D on "Clash of the Titans" was famously rushed.
Yeah, exactly. It was famously rushed and famously horrible. It was absolutely horrible, the 3D. Nothing was working, it was just a gimmick to steal money from the audience. I'm a good boy and I rolled with the punches and everything, but it's not my movie. "Clash of the Titans" is not my movie. And ultimately that's why I didn't do the sequel.

It's a fun action movie, all in all. Some people are really happy with the movie. I tried to do the best I could, but it was not the best experience of my life, I must say. I wasn't protected. Talking about surrounding yourself with the right people -- I felt like I was really thrown at the wolves.

[Hammock Parties]

It's a successful money grab. I like seeing movies in the IMAX theater. Only way I can do that is shelling out for 3D most of the time.

[underEJ]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

. The director of this flick basically saying the 3D in this was crap and 3D is a Hollywood money grab. Of course it is.....

Shitty 3d is a money grab and the current system is 100% Clash of the Titan's god awful conversion's fault. When 3d is done right from storyboards to production to choosing the right system to view it with, it is absolutely amazing and a true addition to the story telling. Unfortunately very few movies are done that way. All conversions suck. There is no high quality conversion that is worth paying for. That is the studio sucker angle.

That being said, I think 3d is going to get a huge crack in the skull by the first brave director who puts his career on the line to try something new. The rules of composition and the visual language of film are designed for creating cinematic depth by arranging everything in frame in a particular way, mise en scene.

Nobody has begun to adjust those rules for the fact that the depth already exists by default in 3d. A very interesting accident of Great and Powerful Oz is that the 3d in the old style aspect ratio does some really interesting things. They didn't however explore that and is sits as a small happy accident in an otherwise fairly forgettable use of 3d.

We need some real exploration of the possibilities. The assumption that 3d is for event movies with lots of effects is the first convention that needs to be thrown out. 3d is very effective in Coraline in some very intimate (one or two characters in a small set) scenes. Animated movies are the place most exploration is happening but even that is tied to huge box office expectations and can't afford much risk.

Time for short film makers to turn a film festival on its ear with some bold and imaginative uses of stereo (3d) in small budget shorts. (I am lecturing myself here! I am long overdue for making another short.)

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by underEJ

Nobody has begun to adjust those rules for the fact that the depth already exists by default in 3d. A very interesting accident of Great and Powerful Oz is that the 3d in the old style aspect ratio does some really interesting things. They didn't however explore that and is sits as a small happy accident in an otherwise fairly forgettable use of 3d.

What part(s) of the movie are you talking about?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

. The director of this flick basically saying the 3D in this was crap and 3D is a Hollywood money grab. Of course it is.....

Anytime there's an "Alternate version" or a "Remaster", it's a money grab.

That will change when, as Under EJ has so expertly detailed, when 3D actually offers something of value (as in "Shot in 3D" and so forth) as opposed to a conversion.

But to add to your quote, I couldn't care less if Leterrier hated the film because of what was taken from him or due to a 3D conversion: IMO, it was a pointless exercise that pales to the original from 1981.

In other words, it was crap and seeing it in 3D most likely enhanced it's crap factor.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud

Anytime there's an "Alternate version" or a "Remaster", it's a money grab.

That will change when, as Under EJ has so expertly detailed, when 3D actually offers something of value (as in "Shot in 3D" and so forth) as opposed to a conversion.

But to add to your quote, I couldn't care less if Leterrier hated the film because of what was taken from him or due to a 3D conversion: IMO, it was a pointless exercise that pales to the original from 1981.

In other words, it was crap and seeing it in 3D most likely enhanced it's crap factor.

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of 3D. I wear glasses and I don't like wearing the shades over them. I'm also of the philosophy that a good film doesn't need 3D to enhance it. A bad film can perhaps be made more tolerable by it though.

I did see Epic over the weekend with my daughter and it looked solid in 3D. I think 3D works better for animation than it does for live action.
Posted via Mobile Device

[underEJ]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What part(s) of the movie are you talking about?

There are a couple of them. When he's in the basket, conventional composition rules would dictate putting objects in the foreground to frame the scene, giving depth and crowding the space, then lens choice can emphasize the space or lack of space that the shot requires. The accident is that with a choice of vintage aspect ratio that is closer to square than the very wide aspect ratios we see mostly these days, and the use of stereo shooting, the square basket itself frames the shot and the bigger depth of the stereo seems to emphasize the lack of space, and the foreground objects are a distraction, quite the opposite of the 2d rules. The stereo is really cool, but hindered by the conventional composition elements.

There is a bit of Buster Keaton style physical comedy when he is still in Kansas that pushes the stereo to a really fun space, again due to the 3:4 aspect ratio, and the natural lankiness of James Franco (I can't even imagine how amazing Keaton would have been in a 3d movie!) It lasts for 3 shots or so and then disappears.

Lastly, and the least surprising or accidental, but educational as well, are the opening credits in the animated theater diorama that explores all kinds of stereo depths even shifting boldly in a single shot. There are many patterns and shapes and combinations of depth that you can really frame through the thing if your stereo playback can do that and examine the success of each composition in that 3:4 aspect ratio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyUHpNI4K-8