The Latest Date Changes

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Season of The Witch looks like a DTV movie anyway.

Moving Takers to August doesn't seem like the smartest move, but whatever...

And buscemi, who is that in your avi?

[undeadmonkey]

Seems like Screen Gems is delaying all their films to 3D-ize them

[silversurfer19]

Anyone else fed up with 3D. I mean, I don't know how many were released in 3D last year (it was a lot though), but the only ones which I can actually remember benefitting from it were Avatar, Up and Coraline. Everything else just felt gimicky. And until 3D means no glasses it'll never truly be the most amazing experience. The sooner his fad is over the better.

[W]

Why be fed up with 3D? It's not like you have to view it in 3D... I watched Avatar in 3D because that seemed to be the best way to view it. It doesn't seem like something to complain about to me... It's just another choice you have. Kind of like complaining not because they got rid of your favorite candy, but because they added the same thing in dark chocolate instead of milk.

The 3D technology is now to the point where it adds to the value of a film than just making it "different". I remember watching Journey to the Center of the Earth last year and it was nothing like Avatar was technologically speaking. The technology is there to make a film better, and if you don't want to watch it in 3D you don't have to, and if people are willing to pay a small premium to cover the cost then who cares?

[silversurfer19]

I watched Journey recently, and was very disappointed by it's tiresomely overdone 3D elements. For examply, we were only 5 minutes in and we were already 'treated' to the yoyo scene. How many times can 3D movies continue to have this pointless scene in it? It seems if there is a 3D movie, this scene needs to be in it. 3D can be so much more, as Coraline and Avatar proved, if it is worked into the story and actually benefits the movie. Avatar did have different 3D elements than Journey, in that it actually brought you into the movie (as I'm sure 3D is intended to in the first place), while Journey just thrust things at you with no reason every so often. Coraline and Nightmare Before Christmas added depth to the 3D, which also benefitted the movie. There are moments where 3D works, and if it does, then great and I'm happy to see it continue.

Clash Of The Titans has been delayed just to add a few extra 3D scenes in it. Why? It wasn't originally intended to be in 3D, but because of the increased revenue Avatar has proved can be made, every studio is jumping at the chance to make every movie in 3D. If the 3D adds something to the movie, then great, but if it's just added as a gimick, as it seems the case in most new movies, then I can't be bothered. Just because it can be put in 3D doesn't mean it should. It's just a way studios have found to make a quick buck.

[numbersix]

I actually felt the 3D in Up was poor. It had no real effect, and I regretted not watching it in 2D. I think there's going to be a problem with film-making in that you can see execs greenlighting films for their 3D potential over anything else (story, talent, etc). Although I'm sure people were saying that when colour film or Talkies arrived, so you never know.

[Buscemi]

And buscemi, who is that in your avi?

It's Boxxy!

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Seems like Screen Gems is delaying all their films to 3D-ize them

Funny enough, apparently they're un-3D-ing Underworld 4 and 3D-ing Priest (?!?). No sense at all...

[Geezer]

On 3D:

This is not a fad. It is not going anywhere. Honestly, I think it is much, much more likely that we get to a point where every movie has some element of 3D in it than the 3D element goes away altogether. I ran some math on Avatar's numbers, and by my estimates it has gained about 150 million dollars by being in 3D. It wouldn't have even been close to Titanic if it didn't have the 3D element, it wouldn't even be all that close to the Dark Knight. This so called fad isn't going anywhere. It works.

Some films have used it successfully, and some have used it as just a gimmick. I think the most successful examples that I have seen have been Avatar, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and surprisingly enough, Beowulf. It made Beowulf actually watchable, as the film itself was terrible but the 3D elements were exceptional. Some films have used it but it was just unnecessary, like most of the animated films including Up, M v A, and the Toy story re-release didn't really need the 3D involved at all. Sure they added some depth and it was somewhat cool, but it wasn't what made those films good. I watched Up again in 2D and it was equally exceptional, because it was driven by story and not effects.

So basically, it helps some films, and doesn't help others, but I have never felt that it actually hurts any of them. And because people have shown that they will pay the extra premium for the 3D, films will continue to add the 3D element because it is all about money. And like W said, it is really not worth complaining about it because they provide 2D versions of the films as well. I loved the candy reference.

[becs]

I doubt anyone knows who Boxxy is.. I had to google it:

Boxxy, or Boxxybabee, is yet another in a long line of chanwhores to revolt and/or endear themselves to the lovelorn basement dwellers

And suddenly it makes sense... jk

Actually she looks alot like my sis-in-law's little sister

[Buscemi]

Also, 3-D reissues of the Star Wars movies, Titanic and Terminator 2 are in the works.

[Geezer]

I had to look it up too, I watched for two minutes before I really wanted to blow my own brains out. Its almost as bad as Fred.

[silversurfer19]

Geez, maybe you misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting I hoped 3D will suddenly disappear, just that I wanted it to be restricted only to movies where it actually enhanced the film. You've mentioned some which have been improved by it, and others which have not. I didn't mean to suggest that a film is brought down by its 3D elements, just that the gimicky use of it is dissapointing in some cases. If you look at the amount of movies being released in 3D in the next year, it's ridiculous. Not all of these movies were intended to be released in 3D in the first place, but just because of the success of the likes of Avatar, now every studio wants a part of it, whether it enhances the movie or not. There are about 60 films set to be released in 3D in the next couple of years. Surely they don't all need to be!

And furthermore, I have read somewhere that theatres are struggling to even cope with the quantity of 3D movies. Alice in Wonderland is released in a month, but with Avatar still going strong, and with the Oscars just before Alice's release, theatres don't want to remove Cameron's epic. But they will have to make way. Then you've also got the shuffle continuing because of Clash's clash with How To Train Your Dragon. If this continues, movies are going to be constantly clashing despite the 5100 planned extra screens.

You mentioned that Up didn't need to be released in 3D, and you may be true (my experience of it was fantastic, but that may have been the movie itself rather than the 3D element - I'll have to watch it in that format to make a judgement). If that is the case, you can see my point I assume. If movies don't need to be released in 3D, and it doesn't add anything, I don't think it should be made so just because it can. To use the candy bar analogy, just because you can put coconut in a chocolate bar, it doesn't mean Bounty should exist. It just doesn't work.

[becs]

Highly visual movies (Avatar, Alice) I can see, but 3d how to train your dragon sounds stupid to me (I'm sure it will be more gimmicks than anything), BUT the studios also realize that kids like the stupid gimmicky use of it (well, everyone but my little brother). So while I am sure the use of 3D will be embarrassing to us for that particular movie, but it will bring in dollars, and with 3D screens being so much more widely available this year than ever before studios are going to try and cash in, it all goes back to the quality vs greed argument that always seems to come up.

[Geezer]

Its simple, Surfer. Its all about the money. If they decide that the cost to put 3D in a movie is less than the additional profits they will gain by charging extra for it, they are going to do it. Its not about what is necessary to the film or what enhances it. Films have been made for years and years and have been great without it. Its a money thing. Adding 3D makes more money, and especially with all the additional revenue Avatar pulled in, studios will be clamoring to add it, hoping they strike it rich like Avatar did.

The additional push for 3D films will keep pushing theaters to make the switch over to more 3D screens, regardless of how expensive it is (about 100 grand per screen). This could put some theaters out of business, but its certainly not going away.

If studios were always looking to put out the best quality, a lot of films wouldn't exist, and I'm sure you understand that. But they will do anything to make money, and if that means attaching 3D to every film, they are going to do it. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if someday every film has a 3D version, or at least every major studio release.