'Iron Man 2' Might Be Flying in 3-D
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Disney, Paramount, RumorMonger, Tech Stuff, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
I believe I've had to type 3D more times this week than I have in my Cinematical career thus far, and it's only Wednesday. I'm also seeing the birth of a new trend towards 3D rumor mongering and speculation which I want to say began with The Hobbit, but I would probably be very wrong. But I digress. Today, Ain't It Cool News is reporting that we might see Iron Man 2 converted into 3D. According to Harry Knowles: "Right now, there is a 1 minute demo of Iron Man 2 converted to high quality digital 3D ... Right now the suits at Marvel & Paramount & now also Disney are considering this 1 minute. At the same time that this is happening, they are fishing for bids with 3 different companies to see what the cost and time it would take to convert Iron Man 2 to a complete 3D film." There's also talk that if they actually pay to convert Iron Man 2 to 3D, they might also do the same to the first Iron Man and rerelease it into theaters next May. Watch Jon Favreau's Twitter to see if this comes true or not.
As Knowles points out, if it does come to pass it would certainly be a game-changer for the upcoming Marvel slate. You might see Captain America, Thor, or The Avengers behind a pair of dorky glasses. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, as I find the format too distracting to be enjoyable. But it would be a hell of a lot of fun to see Iron Man rereleased in 3D, and revamping an existing film seems better suited to this ongoing novelty than designing a film around some pop-out effects. I seem to be in the cranky minority when it comes to the 3D style though, and those who are enthusiastic for it are certainly winning the war for it.
_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive 'Nine' Poster Premiere!
Exclusive: Title Track for 'The Road' Soundtrack
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-02-2009 @ 9:51AM
dishesaredone said...
I'm just as cautious as the need person about 3D, like the comments on The Hobbit going that route. But doesn't Ironman lend itself so much more to those visuals? I think they should do it.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 9:52AM
dishesaredone said...
Next
9-02-2009 @ 10:52AM
Joseph Finn said...
Good lord, isn't this fad over yet?
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 11:01AM
Chet said...
Makes sense that they're considering this now, presumably before many of the CGI shots have been rendered.
I have no interest in 3D. Until the color gamut and the funky glasses are gone, you can include me out. I'm not even sure I'll see Avatar in 3D. It's not immersive, it's not even an improvement over 2D.
And here's the thing. They'll probably justify it based on an additional investment of $X million resulting in an expected $Y>X million in 3D ticket sales, but how much of that is additional revenue and how much steals from regular ticket sales? For something like Iron Man 2, are there really people who weren't gonna go see it but change their minds because it's available in 3D? Are there really that many people who'll go see it an extra time for 3D?
Retrofitting the first flick and re-releasing it along with the sequel, that's a net gain in ticket sales, but enough to turn a significant profit? The cost of the process, the prints, and the promotion... do whatever, guys, but it better not detract one iota from the duology's measure of success or the future of the Marvel franchise on film. And if The Avengers has a bunch of gimmick "crap thrown out at the audience" shots ruining the look of the flick for the sake of enhance the 3D version, I'm gonna have to come down to the studio offices and bust heads -- and believe me, that WILL be immersive.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 12:29PM
MarkH said...
I'm with you on this one. I've seen a few 3D movies in Imax in the past few years, and the effects are kind of cool, presuming you're sitting in the correct part of the theater (off to the sides: not correct). But it adds absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of the film, and the glasses and the effects that *don't* work (most of them, in my limited experience) just end up detracting from my enjoyment. Count me out.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 3:24PM
Joe said...
I hate 3D films it is already not cheap to see a movie and now the people making these films want you to pay more to see the films. I also hate when they add cheap things to throw out at you.
I saw Up in 3D and Monsters vs Aliens and I saw no reason they had to be in 3d. I would have preferred to see 2d. The only thing I saw was the bodies of the people in front of furniture and little things like that and really what does that add. I would so much to see the people right by the furniture
I will say if film goes this way with 3d becoming the norm I will just wait for the DVD for 20 instead of paying 13 or 14 dollars to see the film one time. So I hope this turns out to be fake.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 10:37PM
José A. Rivas G. said...
So, I have a question... The all experience of live action footage in 3D doesn't have to be shoot with two cameras for stereoscopic reasons? How they convert a 2D flick to 3D in the first place, or is it only the CGI parts?
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 10:50PM
madgamer said...
They can do it after the fact but it is currently a huge pain in the butt. It basically involves rotoscoping (tracing around) the characters or key elements in a scene to seperate them from the rest of the frame, so that they can be shifted left/right to simulate the view from your other eye (other than the one that would be the camera lens). Someone then has to digitally paint in behind them to clean things up if they are moved very far as well. They did this with The Nightmare Before Christmas when it was re-released in 3D not so long ago.
9-03-2009 @ 12:31AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Good grief, let the 3-D thing alone. It's really not ready for prime-time still.
Reply
9-03-2009 @ 8:34AM
PromoRx said...
I can't belive all the negative stuff about 3-D (and for that matter Avatar), this is the future in movies. The technology is new and will improve with people like Cameron, Lucas, Speilberg, and Jackson at the forefront. The technology is just starting to be used in the Medical Business.
Just wondering if you guys were against talking movies movies when they came out (please that was just tongue in cheek).
During Avatar day, both my daughter (14) and I walked out of the 16 minute clip very impressed. We travel to see all movies in Imax (and 3-D) for that matter.
Reply
9-06-2009 @ 9:26PM
Chet said...
IMAX is fine -- in fact, it's better than fine, it's what the future of big-screen film viewing should be.
But it requires a big expensive projector, big expensive theater with a big expensive screen and sound system, and for full effect the flick has to be shot with big expensive and cumbersome cameras.
3D, on the other hand, can be built into the digital effects, retrofitted to the live-action shots, be an almost no-cost part of any computer-animated film, and it's something every theater owner can get a piece of with little or no additional capital investment.
Never mind that it's a gimmick that actually HURTS the visual quality of the film, we're all goofy for it because "it's like stuff's actually coming at you!"
The real crime is that if 3D gains traction for live-action flicks, it'll come at the expense of more stuff shot in IMAX.
Because I'll go pay 50% more for a movie with scenes shot in IMAX, but not if I have to wear glasses that make it look like I'm sitting too close to a thirty-year-old tube television.
9-04-2009 @ 7:01PM
stephen said...
I still cannot figure out why everybody is complaining about 3-d. And, Pixar has already been saying that future releases from them are to be in 3-D. When Disney was showing "Chicken Little", the newspapers were saying for an extra million, they can retro any flick into 3-D.At least any battle scenes ought to look pretty cool.
Reply
9-06-2009 @ 6:37PM
richaton said...
Not even remotely interested in 3-d, it's a pain in the butt. especially for people who have to wear glasses to see a regular movie.
then add a second pair.
no fun no mas no mas
Reply