Well, that was inevitable. Sony has announced that the rebooted “Spiderman” franchise is going to be in 3D and will be hitting theaters on July 3, 2012. At this point, we’re just going to assume that every major comic book film and tentpole is going to arrive in IMAX3DZOMG vision until someone tells us otherwise.
As everyone knows by now, “(500) Days Of Summer” helmer Marc Webb will be directing the project that more and more looks like it’s skewing even younger than Raimi’s pictures. This puts the icing on the cake so to speak. We were intrigued when Webb was brought onboard as he’s at least the right choice in terms of managing Peter Parker’s issues without turning into emo drivel like Raimi. But the choice to go 3D pretty much solidifies the fact that Sony wants lots of “wow” factor which probably means that once again writing characters that one-dimensional probably won’t happen.
While Logan Lerman was talking himself up recently about starring in the franchise, we made our own list of potential Peter Parker’s and Mary Jane’s which you can check out here. Otherwise, we’re keeping our expectations considerably low on this one.
What is the problem here? What's so terrible about 3D that it warrants this overly negative report? At least it'll be a different experience to the Raimi films, and 3D swinging through the streets of NYC might look quite cool. You're just being negative for negativity's sake.
Toron-tonto, go away.
The 3D market has become saturated before it really even got going. It's just a PR grab (see latest Clash of the Titans posters for a great example). All tentpoles/comic book films do not warrant 3D. Especially the ones being converted to 3D after they were already shot. If there is a specific scope and depth that the director is attempting to capture, then I'm OK with it. But 3D for the sake of 3D is ridiculous.
William Castle would be proud to see what's going on in modern film. Crappy films are passing as great due to smoke and mirrors.
They have a $80 million budget and want to put an emphasis on character and romance. 3D kinda suggests otherwise, no? Marc Webb better be one clever, crafty, thrifty motherfucker.
I don't personally have problem with 3D, but I think the fear is that writers/directors will sacrifice the quality of the works (i.e. a compelling story) for something that people just kind of mindlessly gawk at. For instance, I can't tell you the story behind the Universal Studio's Terminator 3D Experience, because the story isn't important, its just this kind of mindless experience. I wasn't even born when that first wave of 3D movies came along in the early 80s (?), but there is a reason that fad died out.
Additionally, even if there is any affect behind the effects, I can't help but feel like I might just be distracted by the whole 3D thing. It just seems a little overwhelming.
Still, I'll give Mark Webb the benefit of the doubt, and go in with an open mind. I won't dismiss a movie just because its 3D, but, at the same time, I do recognize that its just kind of a fad.