Today's Sort-of Remake: Journey to the Center of the Earth -- in 3-D!
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Casting, New Line, Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels
I honestly didn't even know we were still
making movies in 3-D. I mean, I enjoy putting on the glasses and watching old westerns in 3-D as much as the next Film
Forum lover, but that's enjoyable because it's a weird novelty, not because I actually think movies are improved by the
illusion of things flying out at me. This is an honest question -- do audiences really want to see stuff in 3-D? Beyond
the novelty factor, what's appealing about it? Help me out here.While I'm wasting time asking stupid questions, the ubiquitous Walden Media and their friends at New Line are busy updating and 3-D-ing the crap out of Journey to the Center of the Earth -- only, in an effort to appeal the very busy, non-reading kids of today, they're calling it Journey 3-D. (I'm not actually sure this really counts as a remake -- it's more of an additional adaptation than it is a riff on a specific film.) The screenplay was written by D.V. DeVincentis (he wrote both High Fidelity and Grosse Pointe Blank, which makes this sound like it could be a lot smarter than you'd expect), and
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-21-2006 @ 10:34PM
Watson said...
I was very skeptical of 3D, but I was interested enough to go and see "Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" at the IMAX theater last year. I was blown away. It literally put you on the moon, and in the cockpit of the lunar lander in a way I'd never imagined. It wasn't the 3D I was used to, and I was hooked. After much pushing, I convinced others to go, and, though also skeptical, they too were hooked after watching this film.
That being said, I'm not sure I want to see *every* film in 3D. I have to admit, though, that it has a huge impact on the movie-going experience, and really draws you in —- if done correctly.
Reply
4-22-2006 @ 11:18AM
Jonathan said...
I haven't had the chance to read Journey to the Center of the Earth yet, as I'm still reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, but I think a book like that in 3-D would be cool.
I'm also offended by the "non-reading" kids of today comment.
Reply
4-23-2006 @ 2:31PM
Jonathan Cohen said...
3-D movies make a lot of sense. They're a movie-going experience that viewers can't easily duplicate in their own home theatres.
Consider the different possibilities for 3-D viewing:
1. Anaglyph (red-green glasses) - this is the most crude type of 3-D, but works with any format of home theatre. Unfortunately, because of the process, colors are often flattened out, and there is a lot of ghosting (when you can see doubled images). Works best on an LCD monitor/TV.
2. Polarized passive glasses (the cardboard glasses with grey filters) - do not work with CRTs, LCDs, or plasma TVs. You need a special dual-projector setup. Even then, the picture is usually dimmer than a normal movie.
3. Polarized active glasses (aka 'flicker/shutter glasses', connected to the home theatre via wire or wireless) - most do not work with LCDs, CRT-only as far as I know. Heavy and clunky, and the image flickers.
As for 3-D movies being crappy in content, that's a problem for the producers. James Cameron has done some amazing work. It's a matter of using 3-D to enhance the movie, not an excuse for throwing objects at the screen. Think of what Hitchcock did with color in films like Marnie.
Reply