Friday, February 25, 2011 at 12:08PM Here We Go Again... 'Clash of the Titans' Sequel Getting the Dreaded 3D Post-Conversion
Just when I thought things were looking up for the Clash of the Titans sequel, Wrath of the Titans, with the casting of Rasamund Pike, we get this news. What's disheartening isn't the fact that the sequel will be hitting theaters in 3D as a 3D release has always been planned, what's disheartening is to hear those god awful words "post-conversion". If you've read anything about last year's Clash or if god forbid you were like me and spent your hard earned money to see it in 3D in theaters, then you're well aware that it is being considered the worst 3D film release of all-time. And that's not because the movie was bad, it's because of the hasty post-production conversion to 3D just to gain a few extra studio bucks.
It looks as though history may repeat itself as the sequel's director Jonathan Liebesman announced that rather than shoot in native 3D, they'll once again shoot on film and up-convert to 3D in post. "Why, god, why would they be doing this again?" you might be asking yourself, and justifiably so. But, things may not be as bad as we fear according to Liebesman. In a press tour for his upcoming film Battle: Los Angeles, the director addressed the 3D post-conversion report and said that he won't be making the same mistakes as his predecessor.
When speaking to Cinematical, Liebesman said:
"The big question was to shoot native 3D or not. 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 showed me how far conversion’s come. You’ve got Chris Nolan doing Inception, converting the DVD, you’ve got Harry Potterbeing converted, Star Wars being converted, so the conversion process has improved dramatically in the past two years."
He followed that up by telling Collider:
"From the start, Clash 2 has been conceived as a 3D picture. The sets, the way I’m going to shoot the choreography of the shots, because what we’re gonna instead of say 4 shots we’re gonna do 1, I’m even gonna shoot it in a 1.8:5 aspect ratio. Sam Worthington put me in touch with Jim Cameron, we spoke a lot about aspect ratios and 3D. He said something that really stuck with me which was, 2D scope is 2.3:5. That feels scope in 2D, for 3D he felt like 1.8:5. And we have a lot of big creatures so I want that vertical space so I don’t have to cut so I’m also gonna shoot in 1.8:5. I did a bunch of test with different digital cameras…and the one thing that was very difficult for me was, I felt for a Greek epic I wanted to shoot on film to get that texture that I was looking for with that motion blur... So now what we’re doing is, I wanna shoot film, we’re gonna have what are called stereographers on set who are guys who are sitting there advising you. It’s a completely different situation to Clash 1… Look I would always prefer to shoot native, I just feel like film is the way to go with a Greek epic. Especially the way I wanna shoot it, which is more old school."
I'm still not sold. That's great that the guy has a vision and he doesn't want to compromise said vision by shooting on digital for 3D, then why bother with 3D at all? If the way you want to make a film doesn't mesh with 3D, then the extra dimension can only hurt it and the only reason for it is the almighty dollar. After last year, I learned my lesson and vowed never to see a film in 3D again unless it was shot natively in 3D. So looks like I'll be catching the Wrath in 2D with Liebesman's grittier, grounded look.
Reader Comments (5)
Sounds to me like they know what went wrong before and they're going in the direction that's most away from it. They must be confident in the upgraded 3D upconversion process so much that they're trying it with actual film (converted to digital) instead of just going the native digital 3D route that everyone else is taking. So okay, they're taking some risks. Ideally, that's what they should be doing. Everybody else will have a digital look and their's will have a more filmic texture. They're looking at the aspect ratio as well and how that plays on the eye's visual field. As long as they realize they're making a different KIND of movie and the colors, compostion and movement work differently with a new process, they're moving things ahead.
We'll tell you about it when we see it, since you'll obviously miss it being so uninterested and so busy with this blog thing an' all.
I am kind of curious as to how this turns out. I mean, awhile back Sam Worthington and basically the rest of the crew said they were disappointed with Clash of the Titans, and hope to do it better this time around. So while the 3D conversion has a history of looking awful, maybe they can set a trend (and standard) where it can actually look good? Even though it wasn't all that long ago, 3D has been progressing quite a bit.
Interesting about the aspect ratios. True 1.85:1 does have more vertical room but since the sides are narrower it leads to a feeling of claustrophobia and when there is a lot of busy action onscreen the wider aspect ratio of 2.35:1cant be beat. Using spherical lenses in shooting 1.85 in the old days gave the director lots of option with regard to depth of field and low light phototgraphy. These are now pretty much non reasons since scope lenses have advanced tremedously with a huge range of prime lenses. But very few films are shot in scope using anamorphic lenses as opposed to being shot in the scope aspect ratio using spherical lenses (the super 35 format). If you are going to shoot flat (1.85) then let me see the entire frame i.e compose for the full frame which is what the plan is for Wrath of the Titans. I will not watch it in 3d.
It may all depend on the exhibition venue. The narrower scope sounds like it's made more for IMAX, and it may be that it's best seen in one of those theaters. If a regualr theater has a sizable screen - and you sit close enough - one should still get the effect. Heck, some theaters cut off the sides of even 2:35 pictures anyway, so it MAY be that the narrow ratio is the best way to get the most 3D to the most audience.
Ah, J.Bradley what would we do without your snark in our comments. I never said I would miss the film all together because that would be downright irresponsible, wouldn't it? I'm just gonna check it out with V.Ganesh in 2D. Please be sure you and your extra $10 for a 3D ticket let us know how the final product turns out.