• MailChimp Widget

    GORDON AND THE WHALE NEWSLETTER



  • Will IRON MAN 2 be in 3D?

    by:
    September 2nd, 2009

    Untitled.001

    Scoop master extraordinaire Harry Knowles got himself an interesting bit of news concerning everyone's favorite sarcastic tin man and the third dimension. It would seem that a little birdie notified Mr. Knowles via Twitter that there currently existed a one minute piece of test footage for IRON MAN 2 that has been converted to high definition digital 3D. The purpose of said test footage is to determine if Paramount is going to move forward in the process of converting the entire film to 3D, of which three companies are currently in a bidding war for. Furthermore, there are rumors that the studio may go back and convert the first film to 3D as well, most likely for a special limited release in conjunction with IRON MAN 2's release next May.

    While Knowles is extremely confident, saying "I can state that the following is absolutely true," this news has yet to be confirmed or even addressed by Paramount, Marvel, director Jon Favreau, or any other related parties. However, almost this exact time last year, Favreau stated at an IRON MAN DVD conference that the only thing stopping IRON MAN 2 from being in 3D would be budget.

    Let's hope the head geek is right and that Favreau gets his greenbacks, seeing how IRON MAN 2 3D would provide for some welcomed whiplash.

    Read on for more about the 3D transfer process!

    As a side note, I recently had a conversation about the 3D transfer process with director Meni Tsirbas (BATTLE FOR TERRA), a man who spent many years as a visual effects artist on films like TITANIC and HELLBOY. Essentially, the transfer of film not shot in 3D over to 3D has a long, intricate explanation attached to it, of which I did not even fully understand. Basically, from what I got from Meni's explanation, the challenge with the process comes down to two obvious things. Time and money. It's complicated and expensive. Yet, we see more and more film makers utilizing this process to enhance the film viewing experience. An example would be James Cameron, who Meni said converted a segment of TITANIC to 3D for a recent technology conference.

    I believe the reason we are starting to see more 3D technology utilized is it seems to be slowly but surely earning its place as a viable way to further the world of story telling. As opposed to being used as a contrivance. And while the fair share of 3D skeptics still exist, do not forget that sound and color in film were once seen as gimmicks too.

    However, films like FINAL DESTINATION 3D and MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D are not helping in breaking down this stereotype, as the technology used in this way is a blatant gimmick, equivalent of something you would see in a theme park.

    We here at Gordon and the Whale hope for the best, so that our list of 10 films that should have been in 3D may one day soon be more than just our nerd fantasy.

    Source Ain't It Cool News

    Other articles that you might like:

    Commenting Rules: Comments are intended to open up the discussion to our readers about the topics at hand, and as such should be offered with a positive and constructive attitude. If your comment is not relative to the above post or is disrespectful to the authors and readers, we reserve the right to delete it. Continued abuse of our good nature will result in banishment of the offender. Additionally, if you have any burning issues to point out to the GATW crew - typos, corrections, suggestions, or straight-up criticism - please email us instead of commenting here.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dustin-Flynn/1064145971 Dustin Flynn

      I haven't seen the Avatar footage in 3D, but from what data I've gathered its pretty much fanboy nut hangers saying its amazing, otherwise it sounds like its simply better than what existing 3D is out now, but not absolutely amazing. Granted, since I admit not having seen it, my opinion on the matter doesn't hold much weight. So I guess I'll have to wait until December where I get so mind numbingly bored between semesters that I hit up the matinee. My expectations are fairly low for Avatar (not just because of the 3D thing but the whole thing looks pretty goofy if you axe me).

      I've seen a few flicks in 3D, and I have yet to feel like it has added to the experience, and I am no longer willing to pay an extra few dollars to be underwhelmed. Movie prices are outrageous enough as it is.

      In the end, 3D will continue to detract if anything. Music videos changed music forever, arguably for the worst. 3D so far looks like it will do the same because people don't care about story/script/acting quality they care about WHOA HOLY SHIT THAT ICE CREAM CONE JUST FELL ON MY LAP. They are a spectacle that takes away and gives movies excuses for being bad. Color and sound may have been gimmicks, but they could be applied to every film. Look forward to TRANSFORMERS 3D, and people will clap like goofballs because of the robot monster balls are now finally hanging in front of their face, like they can touch them!

      I don't think we'll be seeing romantic comedies in 3d anytime soon, so if 3D is primarily pinned onto certain genres, that means its a gimmick, at least to me.

    • http://www.gordonandthewhale.com JamesWallace

      I don't feel as if the 15 minutes I saw was enough to judge if AVATAR will be “absolutely amazing” in terms of what it is doing with 3D. I do think that what Cameron is trying to do with it is use it as a device to further the experience of watching a film. Not experience in the sense that you feel like you are going to get poked in the eye by and object or feel like bees are swarming at you or, as you said, an ice cream cone falling in your lap. More that you are brought into the environment, hopefully connecting you with the story more. I think the perfect example of this was what Pixar did with UP in 3D.

      And when I referred to color and sound as examples, I was getting at this exact point. Sound enabled audiences to further connect with a film. Color did as well. It broadened the way stories could be told…where they could take us, what they could show us, etc.

      Will 3D still be used as a gimmick? Sure. How many people would have gone to see FD4 or MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D if it had been standard? Not as many, I assure you of that. What's even worse is 3D excused these films for being shitty. I've heard countless people say “so what if it's a bad movie? it is in 3D!” This makes films more like a ride than a piece of film making. That belongs at Six Flags or Disney World.

      And I agree with you. Do romcoms or comedies need to be 3D? Will every film eventually be in 3D? I doubt it. It's unnecessary and tacks on a higher budget to films that are cheaply produced for a reason. I foresee IMAX becoming more of a common trend than I do 3D.

    • http://www.gordonandthewhale.com JamesWallace

      I don't feel as if the 15 minutes I saw was enough to judge if AVATAR will be “absolutely amazing” in terms of what it is doing with 3D. I do think that what Cameron is trying to do with it is use it as a device to further the experience of watching a film. Not experience in the sense that you feel like you are going to get poked in the eye by and object or feel like bees are swarming at you or, as you said, an ice cream cone falling in your lap. More that you are brought into the environment, hopefully connecting you with the story more. I think the perfect example of this was what Pixar did with UP in 3D.

      And when I referred to color and sound as examples, I was getting at this exact point. Sound enabled audiences to further connect with a film. Color did as well. It broadened the way stories could be told…where they could take us, what they could show us, etc.

      Will 3D still be used as a gimmick? Sure. How many people would have gone to see FD4 or MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D if it had been standard? Not as many, I assure you of that. What's even worse is 3D excused these films for being shitty. I've heard countless people say “so what if it's a bad movie? it is in 3D!” This makes films more like a ride than a piece of film making. That belongs at Six Flags or Disney World.

      And I agree with you. Do romcoms or comedies need to be 3D? Will every film eventually be in 3D? I doubt it. It's unnecessary and tacks on a higher budget to films that are cheaply produced for a reason. I foresee IMAX becoming more of a common trend than I do 3D.

  • Recent Post