The aforementioned quote is from James Cameron who describes Hollywood executives’ current attitude toward their big money generating tentpole films. Cameron, along with Michael Bay, features in a rather lengthy and somewhat depressing Deadline Hollywood piece about 3D in which the directors continue to slam 2D to 3D conversion.
First up, Michael Bay is apparently under pressure from Paramount Pictures who want him to 3D-ify his forthcoming “Tranformers 3.” The director, who did some initial test shooting with 3D cameras but decided they were too heavy for the kind of work he generally does, isn’t sold on the conversion process: “I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them. Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.” Regarding that last statement, it will be interesting to see who blinks first between Bay and the studio.
Bay goes on to say what we’ve been saying all along, “This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar took four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie. I’m saying, the jury is still out.”
As for Cameron, who conveniently leaves out the fact that’s converting “Titanic,” he says, “Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”
Not only that, the director is worried about virgin 3D directors and is offering his services as a “crisis counselor to any director who asks.” Cameron even goes so far as to suggest that Marc Webb, who he was rumored to be meeting with, had 3D shoved into his lap for the “Spiderman” reboot, “Sony says, we’re doing Spider-Man in 3D.’ The director doesn’t say, `Hey, I want to make the movie in 3D.’ The studio says, `You want to direct this movie? You’re doing it in 3D, motherfucker!’ That’s not how it should be.”
So just what upcoming films are being considered for 3D? “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” “The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” “Gulliver’s Travels” and “The Hobbit” are among those being eyed. For the latter, director Guillermo Del Toro is apparently leaning on going 2D but Warner Bros. want to pump as much money out of the franchise as possible and the decision on whether or not 3D-ify the “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy will depend on “The Hobbit” decision as they don’t want Del Toro’s film to appear as being visually inferior.
We can’t really say we’re surprised by any of this, but if “Alice In Wonderland” is any indication — taking the top spot at the box office three weeks straight — audiences don’t care about craft. And as long as audiences keep making 3D converted films tops at the box office, studios will keep shoving them down our throat.
'Alice in Wonderland' would have been atop the box-office these past three weeks regardless of 3D. Maybe it wouldn't have the $250 it does now, but it would be close enough.
The budget was $200? So how much would it have been without the 3D treatment, $175?
I can't see 'Clash of the Titans' tearing up the box-office. Hopefully it will be a downer for 3D advocates.
Sad, sad, sad.
"You can’t just shit out a 3D movie"
"You’re doing it in 3D, motherfucker!"
2 of a kind? 2 of a kind!
It costs about 3-4 million to turn a 2D film into 3D.
Shooting a film in 3D adds a lot more than to the cost of production. It's about money. If they can make it cheaper, then they can make more money.
Most of the audiences won't notice the difference in the crappier 3D anyway. This is the modern day equivalent to colourising black and white films.
So $3 or $4 million. That's not much at all.
How could we not expect the producers of Clash of the Titans not to jump at that? It's not going to be a great film anyway. The CGI-fest might as well have some cheap 3D that looks decent and maybe make 30% more. It'll earn $3-4 million more than it would in 2D for sure.
Even if it's not, as Cameron says as great of a product (or very close) compared to shooting in 3D, who cares? It's just so much cheaper, why wouldn't they do it for some of these movies. Why wouldn't the studio behind 'Alice' do it?
Why spend 2-1/2 years on a hollow story full of CGI when you can spend 1 year?
Maybe having to pay $4 more will just be a tipping point for people when it comes to blockbusters, and the 3D will slow down.
I'm kind of looking forward to the 3D craze…it'll probably be an indication of what is not worth seeing.
there is something to be said for the kinds of movies being made (converted) in 3D; they ARE tentpoles. If you look at the numbers, and I've been studying these things since "Avatar" took a shit all over the cinemas, these tentpole films would make about the same #s in just 2D; 5% give or take. Compare these to movies to last year's movies, compare the releasing studios and the projects themselves, they're not that different.
"A Beautiful Mind" or "Hunger" aren't tentpole movies, and making them 3D would really do nothing, in fact, it would be a disservice. I'm not an elitist, I just love film. Most of the people I know are Transformer-type movie lovers, and not one of them is drawn to see a movie just because its in 3D. I'm still looking for someone who is, so if you find them, let me know!
"
"A Beautiful Mind" or "Hunger" aren't tentpole movies, and making them 3D would really do nothing, in fact, it would be a disservice
"
actually, Avatar argues that ALL movies should have always been in 3D. Not just escapism entertainment
i just found myself nodding my head in agreement with both Michael Bay and James Cameron. shoot me now.
@Mark A. Fedeli
lol, amen.