The first (remake of) Clash of the Titans was converted to 3D in post-production in just six weeks to capitalize on the success of Avatar, and pretty much everyone who saw it said it looked horrible. Most people hating it notwithstanding, it made almost $500 million worldwide and plans are in the works for a sequel, Wrath of the Titans (TITANS! WILL! WRATH!). Oh well, at least they can shoot the thing in 3D this time, right? WRONG! YOU’LL GET POST-CONVERTED 3D AND YOU WILL LIKE IT, PUKE!
Jonathan Liebesman, director of the new film ‘Battle: Los Angeles,’ told Cinematical “I think what you have to remember is the first film was neither shot nor edited with 3D in mind.” “It was shot as a 2D movie and edited as a 2D film, and they decided to convert it with six or seven weeks to go until release, which is insane; the technology was not there. That’s why we’re conceiving it from the start, from the ground up, in 3D, editing in 3D for 3D.”
The reason the filmmaker is converting ‘Wrath’ rather than shooting it that way is because he wants to shoot on film, which will give the film’s imagery better texture than he would get shooting digitally. “The big question was to shoot native 3D or not,” Liebesman said. “I tested a lot of digital cameras, and quite frankly, because I’m going for a sort of much grittier, grounded look in ‘Clash 2,’ the look I want is almost ‘Gladiator’ with fantastical creatures in it, I found that the characteristics of film were more what I was going for.”
“I didn’t want to convert, but Warner Brothers hooked my nipples up to a car battery and demanded I ‘FEED THE KITTY’ showed me how far conversion’s come,” he explained. [Cinematical]
I like it when crappy movies are in 3D because it means that I save an additional five dollars by not seeing them. This is really just a tax on stupid people, like WWE or the lottery.
Semi-related: here’s a clip from Battle: Los Angeles. The dialog is brilliant:
Wait, I’m still confused about one thing. Was it just a dog?