So basically it’s come down to this — every blockbuster, every top o’ the box office hit, every action movie, they will all be 3D. We’re going to try not to ache and moan about it too much as this trend seems to be here to stay. At least until one of them bombs (and you guys do know that no one’s pointing a gun to your head when it comes to purchasing tickets, right?).
The LA Times reports that writers Keiran and Michele Mulroney (who wrote the polar opposite indie, “Paper Man”) say that there have been talks at Warner Bros. to make “Sherlock Holmes 2” a 3D film. Which basically means that, yes, it will probably be a 3D film (though don’t believe the hype of certain producers and actors claiming they wanted 3D from the beginning and conveniently never actually shot their pictures in 3D).
The writers go on to mention that the studio doesn’t want anything that will hamper its progress, “they’re anxious to get [the sequel] moving,” the duo said, so that could preclude the use of 3D, but hey these days, it’s all about the cheaper conversion down the road, right?
Though the Mulroneys are evidently worried that every Hollywood tentpole that is churned out will be an “z-axis spectacle,” they ultimately agree that those Sherlock-ian roundhouse kicks to the face would be much sweeter three-dimensionalized. “Sherlock would be great in 3-D,” though sounding defeated when they speak of the craze that appears to have no end.”The wind keeps moving in that direction.” Uhh, yeah, it does.
The rest of the article lacks any other updates, and the mystery of what role Moriarty will play is still unclear, and whether or not that he will be played by Brad Pitt is still a question. But who needs solid narrative and casting news, now that we know it’s probably going to be in 3D? To be fair, Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” was infinitely more entertaining than we ever thought it had the right to be. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law had excellent chemistry, Rachel McAdams is always good, Hans Zimmer’s score was tremendous, and the entire endeavor was much more than the sub-“Pirates of The Caribbean” retread we expected from reading early script drafts and watching lameduck trailers.
Either way, if the sequel gives just a fraction of enjoyment that the first gave, we’ll be happy. Insiders (people actually set to work on the picture) tell us the shoot is being eyed for a late summer start which jives with WB’s, let’s-get-this-shit-started-already anxiety level. Shooting will take place in England and Germany, with the possibility of other countries in the mix as the story may take the two detectives all over Europe. 3D or not (but probably), “Sherlock Holmes 2” is on the way.
Yeah I know I don't have to buy a ticket, but I don't have to like it.
Wearing 3d glasses on top of my glasses just isn't very fun for 2+ hours.
And people keep telling me I can just see the 2d showing, but honestly, more and more theaters around me are airing the tentpoles only in 3d. Not one screening of Clash in 2d for miles.
Never thought I'd be waiting for most big movies on dvd.
I dunno what happened to Jesse's comment, but I agree. 2D screenings of 3D films are going the way of the dodo bird.
I was hoping there would be Clash of the Titans press screenings in 2D, but there were none. The movie was terrible regardless, but obviously some detested it more because of the bungled 2D.
Not that critics matter, especially when you make a mint more with 3D (though i think 2nd week drop off on Titans was pretty sharp, I'd have to recheck or ask our B.O experts).
I didn't know we didn't have to buy tickets for these movies. Thanks for pointing this out. Just saved my bank account from the constant drain of 3D tickets!!
here's my thing. No I don't like the higher price particularly if they take away the option to see 2d.
I'm not fond of the old school blue/red 3d format cause it gives me a huge headache
Outside of digital ani like Toy Story or Coraline, I don't think all scenes benefit from being 3dized and shouldn't be.
but after all that, if you are going to do 3d you better film it that way or have a minimum of 6 months (preferably a full year) do it is right. particularly if you do the whole film. IF you are only doing the 20 minutes of the big battle at the end, okay perhaps you can do that justice in 6 weeks.
and someone please can we have glassless 3d like yesterday. some of us have to wear glasses already and that's a total cock up to deal with
here's the thing..the first movie really sucked..aside from good acting it was just stupid all around…not alot of fun at all….