Clash of the Titans of course proves movie critics out of touch

Senior Editor
04.05.10 14 Comments


Most of the critics thought Clash of the Titans was either sucky, or fun in a really sucky way (like your sister), and that the post-converted 3D was kind of pointless because it actually looked better without the glasses. But it also earned $61 million dollars and broke an Easter weekend record.  How could both of these things be true??!?  Why, this must be proof that elitist film snobs are out of touch with your average Joe Sh*tferbrains.  Writes the NY Times:

But what about regular moviegoers — would they even notice anything amiss with the movie’s 3-D?  Early feedback indicates that Joe and Jane Moviegoer don’t really see what all the fuss is about.

“I thought the 3-D quality was really good,” said Eric Shimp as he left a showing of “Clash of the Titans” at the AMC Century City 15 in Los Angeles. Mr. Shimp, who works in the automotive industry [*cough* Jiffy Lube! *cough, cough*], added, “The ticket prices are ridiculous, but it does leave you feeling like you’ve just seen a spectacle.”

Sharle Kochman, a cosmetologist, said as she left the theater that she thought the 3-D quality was on a par with “Avatar,” and Lauren Shotwell, a music executive, said she noticed none of the tell-tale signs of a 3-D conversion: blurriness, double images (called “ghosting”), flat backgrounds. “During the computer-generated parts the 3-D looked totally fine,” Ms. Shotwell said.

So what you’re saying is, one group of people think one thing, and another group thinks someone else? My stars, I’ve never seen a mainstream newspaper article take shape in such a way.  Wait, don’t tell me how it ends!

It remains too early to tell [shocking] whether audiences will rebel at 3-D (“Avatar”) and what some experts are calling 3-D Lite (movies shot the normal way and converted afterward).

Jim Dorey, editor of, a blog devoted to the medium, ultimately thinks the quickie “Clash” conversion was a mistake. But unlike many technophiles he is not closing the door on the retrofitting process.

“If the right money is spent and you take your time, then native 3-D and converted 3-D can both be exceptional,” Mr. Dorey said. “Even when it’s not very well done I suspect most consumers will find it passable.”

Nice work, journalist. I see you did your graduate work at On the Other Hand University.  And hold the phone, the New York Times is quoting f*cking MarketSaw now?   Let me give you an example of the literary insight on offer there, from a MarketSaw story I covered last fall:

But here is the shocker: Lucas will be producing and NOT directing these new episodes apparently! Could Steven Spielberg be tapped to direct a STAR WARS movie after all? Yes according to a trusted source of mine! Further, Francis Ford Coppola was mentioned too as a possible director for a future film!

Personally I WANT this to happen dearly. I REALLY want to see what the STAR WARS universe looks like in Spielberg’s hands *AND* in stereoscopic 3D. You would too, wouldn’t you? :-)

I apologize, but I had to leave the original formatting intact to give you the full, Japanese-grade-schooler-after-too-much-coffee aesthetic.  Bottom line, it appears movie execs have a tough choice ahead of them: do they allow the director to make his own decisions about whether a movie should be in 3D?  It might sound logical, but as we’ve seen, it flies in the face of anecdotal market research.

“It was kind of like Avatar!” -cosmetologist trying to be polite.

“I have a definite inkling a theoretical consumer mind find it totally acceptable!” -Guy who uses smiley faces unsarcastically.

“It was fine!” -some chick.

And keep in mind, the box office record it just broke was previously held byScary Movie 4.  Choose wisely.

Around The Web