'Clash of Titans' in 3D decision coming soon

By Carl DiOrio

Warner Bros. will decide in the next 10 days whether to release Louis Leterrier’s remake of action fantasy “Clash of the Titans” in 3D.

Warners has ordered a 3D test of the film — set for release on March 26 -- and will screen the converted scenes next week before deciding whether to make the move. Studios across Hollywood are looking into possible 3D conversions in the aftermath of the big boxoffice bonanza called “Avatar.”

With conversions, 2D films -- whether newly produced movies or classic titles slotted for release, such as the first two “Toy Story” pics -- are run through a process that turns 2D images into 3D. Most 3D movies, including “Avatar,” are shot in 3D from the start.

Co-produced by Legendary Pictures, “Titans” is a re-imagining of a 1981 film that starred Laurence Olivier in the character of Zeus. The role is played by Liam Neeson in the remake, appearing opposing Sam Worthington’s Perseus in the mythology-based actioner.

Releasing “Titans” in 3D would be a dramatic statement about the growth of 3D exhibition, as it would be a second big 3D title set for release the final weekend of March.

Warners would need to find an ample number of extra-dimensional venues for the same weekend that Paramount unspools DreamWorks Animation’s big animated feature “How to Train Your Dragon,” which also is slotted for the March 26 frame.

The word from a studio insider on the prospect of securing thousands of 3D screens for “Titans”: “No problem.”

Comments

[buy nintendo dsi r4]

They should bring this move without 3D, everything doesn't have to be done the same way.Adding more high-quality scenes sounds like an excellent idea. Bravo!

[Jeff Archuleta]

http://vimeo.com/7761485
Expertly shot & edited. Done with so much insight & attention to detail that most women who see it can't believe it was created by a man.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0033811/
jeff, great job on your short.
> very clean. i am impressed
> peace
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1843310/

[MyNameIsFake]

Studios look at Avatar and see that it is approaching $1.7 billion so now they think that their movie will make near that if they put theirs in 3D as well. 2D movies that are switched to 3D aren't really better.

3D movies that are filmed with two lenses are ten times better than the computerized 2D to 3D films (with maybe the exception of animated movies).

The 2D to 3D conversions are kinda like making B&W movies into color except not as horrific. Here's a suggestion, shoot everything with those double lenses, then decide later to release it in 2D or 3D. You'll be future-proofing your movies.

[Guess Who]

Pixel pushing to convert the film to Stereoscopic-3D, within the short time span they have before release, will not likely produce satisfactory results.

I hear that Passmore's results for PIRANHA are far less than stellar. In-Three's conversion of the first ten-minutes of STAR WARS looked great -- but the project of converting the entire film took so long & cost so much more than anticipated that Lucas pulled it from them. And the converted-to-3D scenes in SUPERMAN RETURNS and the HARRY POTTER films were pretty awful, if not totally unnecessary.

Even the good job on G-FORCE displayed annoying tell-tale sighs of conversion.

Warner's will pay through the nose for this rush job (which will be far greater than $5 million, most likely) and it will be hardly worth the effort or believed increased BO.

I can just see the local digital houses farming most of this pixel-pushing to countless slave artists in Asia to get it done.

Shoot live action films "properly" in S-3D with dual-lensed camera rigs & a proper Stereo supervisor and save yourselves this kind of grief in post. Then, use conversions to fix those rare problem shots.

Frankly, having seen the trailer for this period remake (with its utterly incongruous rock-style musical underscore), I don't quite get why they anyone bothered.

If you want to deliver S-3D, do it right in the first place like Mr Cameron did. And don't forget that, even with the careful conservative approach he used in AVATAR, there were many people who *still* got headaches and would've preferred to have seen it in 2D instead.

AVATAR's success was more due to it being a good film than it being in S-3D.

CLASH doesn't look too good to me -- flat or even as a depthie.

[bali luxury]

The Medusa scene and the Kraken might be pretty sweet in 3D -- but I think that moving a 2D into a 3D film isn't really a selling point for those that weren't interested in the first place...

[Guess Who]

It makes me wonder, Bali Luxury. Either Warners thinks they have something good and want to amp it up a bit. Or, they realize they have a stinker on their hands and are trying to figure out what they can do to salvage their BO.

[tiffany co]

3D movies that are filmed with two lenses are ten times better than the computerized 2D to 3D films (with maybe the exception of animated movies).

[tiffany jewellery]

Frankly, having seen the trailer for this period remake (with its utterly incongruous rock-style musical underscore), I don't quite get why they anyone bothered.