3d Tagged Articles at Cinematical

This has to stop. I don't know how I became the defacto Cinematical poster for all things 3D, but in less than a week I've gone from hypothesizing about the Oscars creating an awards category for 3D films to sharing my enthusiasm for Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol to raving about how pointless a 3D CGI animated prequel to Night of the Living Dead sounds to the announcement of a new 3D study program at USC's film school. And if that's not enough of the third dimension for one man to take in so short a span, now comes word that Real D has plans to manufacture 3D-wear from designers like Gucci.

Variety has the scoop from the recent 3D Entertainment Summit, "While Real D hasn't made a formal announcement, Real D topper Michael Lewis tipped the story after Fox Sports chairman David Hill said he thought great-looking glasses would change the picture for 3D. "I have two teenaged girls, and they don't want to go on dates looking like they're going to do some spot welding," Hill said." ... "Lewis responded that designer Real D glasses, including Gucci designs, will be available "in certain outlets" before "Avatar" opens in December. Prescription glasses are on the way some time later."

Everyone listens to Harry Knowles, but nobody listens to Harry Knowles. I've failed to find a link to his original rant, but a while ago the AICN headgeek was ranting about how 3-D was going to be the future of the medium. He had his own fan perspective as a lover of the gimmick, but more importantly I recall his rant mentioning the business incentive studios had (higher ticket premiums, motivation to back to theaters again, renders piracy pointless) to make all of their tentpole films in the third dimension. And yet no one really took him seriously, it was just another in a long line of Harry's infamous ravings.

That was a year ago, maybe even two. Now the world has more 3-D films than theaters to display them in and it seems like a new production is announced every other day. Whether or not you agree with me that an Oscar for Best 3D is only a matter of time at this point, there is a booming need to accommodate Hollywood's extra-dimensional lust. And if the sheer volume of films looking to capitalize on the tech wasn't sign enough of things to come, now the University of Southern California has announced the creation of a new program within its School of Cinematic Arts to train and challenge students in the still-developing field of stereoscopic 3-D.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but Hollywood tends to break things. If a formula worked once, it will invariably be remade, repackaged, and resold over and over again until the equation is no longer profitable. But occasionally the Hollywood hive mindset is not content with merely breaking something. Every now and then it has to rape and pillage, and thus we shall soon have Night of the Living Dead: Origins. Wallow in these few key bits from The Hollywood Reporter's news on the matter:

"Zombie movie "Night of the Living Dead" is coming back, this time in a 3D CGI format and without the involvement of George Romero." ... "On the story front, De Soto, who wrote the script with David R. Schwartz, wants to update the tale partially by bringing out the characters' backstories and make what he called "an American-style anime."" ... "The aim of the process is to make tennis balls on a stick representing real people or monsters a thing of the past by allowing actors interact with CG elements as if they are tangible." ... "De Soto was a fan of the original "Living Dead" and once the trio realized the rights were in the public domain, zeroed in on that project."

Read the rest of this story at HorrorSquad.

Click image below to view full poster

Cinematical has received this exclusive final poster for Disney's A Christmas Carol, Robert Zemeckis' newest dive into the pioneering world of motion capture animation. The Polar Express and Beowulf director's spin on Charles Dickens' timeless tale of a bitter old man, Ebenezer Scrooge, who is taken on a midnight journey of self-redemption by the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Christmas Yet to Come, stars Jim Carrey as not only the cranky Scrooge, but all three apparitions as well.

As you might have guessed from the poster, Zemeckis' take promises to be the most wondrous adaptation of Dickens' original story to date. Substituting the dour introversion found in countless other cracks at the tale with a sense of adventure is a perfect fit for the man who created Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. If there is any doubt that Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol is going to be anything less than a must see exhibition this November 6th, just take a look at the roll call at the bottom of the poster: Disney Digital 3D, RealD 3D, and IMAX 3D. That's every flavor the cutting edge tech has to offer.

And if the above poster doesn't sell you on the Disney sponsored trip to a magical, Victorian-era wonderland, I'm sure the below trailer will.

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.

It was a roundabout trip that led me to my local IMAX for Avatar day. For starters, I'm not a big fan of 'sneak peeks' -- I'm all for teasers and trailers, but I'm a firm believer in going in to a movie with as much as a blank slate as possible, and that's not always easy in this job. But the thing is, I love a cultural phenomenon, and brother -- Avatar is one of 'em. So I decided to put up with stalled servers at Fox and multiple confirmation emails with threats of everything short of a cavity search to watch a 16 minute commercial. Add to the fact that while I admire the technical stylings of James Cameron, I've never counted myself as one of the devoted. So as you can see, I was hardly the perfect audience for his experiment and I went in to that theater with an open mind, but very few expectations.

Now, thankfully, I tend to be little high strung about these things, and so I showed up an hour early with email and ID in hand -- and judging by Elisabeth's experience with Fox flacks, boy am I glad I did. So there I was in my seat, and as I looked around I kept thinking: what was with the half empty theater? After listening to horror stories of line-ups and sold out shows this made no sense to me. So I have to wonder if all that talk of sold out showings were an attempt by Fox to limit 'exposure' of the film (and piracy). Maybe they just wanted to beef up the hype surrounding the event by touting sold out tickets. But if that was their plan, then it might have backfired because to me, a half-empty theater made the movie look like the bloated, over-hyped flick that some detractors were calling it in the first place. That said, after a brief intro from the man himself (and in 3D no less!) it was time to get on with the show.

After the jump: my two cents on what I saw...

At theaters, 3D is all the rage, boosting box office receipts and giving moviegoers something to talk about -- if not always to love. The year began with generally positive reactions by horror fans to My Bloody Valentine 3D and continued as young fans enjoyed Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience, and families lined up for Monsters vs. Aliens 3D. Can that enthusiasm spread beyond theaters? Can the 3D experience be enjoyed equally well at home?

When he reviewed My Bloody Valentine 3D, our own William Goss felt it was "cheesy, corny, gimmicky, gory fun -- if only in its 3-D theatrical presentation." He questioned whether it would translate at all in 2-D or on DVD. The movie hit DVD and Blu-ray on Tuesday, and our friend Peter Hall at Horror's Not Dead took the movie for a spin. He found the experience seriously wanting: "Watching [My Bloody Valentine 3D] on Blu-ray is akin to trying to watch a movie after staring into the sun before getting donkey punched with an ugly green paint can." He points to a message board thread at High Def Digest that says the "the technology to do Real D (the non red-blue glasses variety) at home does not exist." So all that's available is the "dreadful red-blue" type of "3D" experience for home viewers -- you know, the same type that made us want to claw our eyes out while trying to watch 3D movies in the 80s.

I tried watching the old school 3D at home with Friday the 13th Part 3 on DVD and lasted about 15 minutes. Awful!! Have you seen any recent 3D titles at home? Do they provide a decent experience, or are they a complete waste of time and money?

Like an out-of-control freight train barreling down a hill, more 3-D movies are coming, whether we want them or not. Hollywood studios have placed their bets, theater owners are feeling the pressure to upgrade, and moviegoers are being pummeled with the idea that 3-D is the greatest thing since, well, the last time the studios tried to shove 3-D down our throats, in the long ago, musty, medieval decade known as "the 80s."

That being the case, perhaps we should bow to the inevitable and consider which upcoming movies should be in 3-D, and which ones would be a total wash with an extra-dimensional viewing experience. Amy Pascal of Sony Pictures Entertainment told Forbes Magazine that Spider-Man 4 "could be" shot in 3-D. She and fellow exec Michael Lynton think most animated movies will be in 3-D, and believe James Cameron's Avatar "could change the world," in Pascal's words. (Which we've heard before.) She continued, "I don't know that it will ever be the way you see dramas, but I can't say anymore that it won't be."

Announced 3-D releases for 2010 include: Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Piranha 3D, Toy Story 3, Step Up 3D, and Rapunzel. To allow for development and pre-production time, let's put our thinking caps and consider the future. For example, Spider-Man 4 is slated for release in May 2011. What other live-action pictures planned for 2011 would benefit from 3-D? How about Thor? What if he could hurl his hammer at you in 3-D? Or The First Avenger: Captain America? How about making Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II extra special -- in 3-D? Why not The Hobbit? Maybe some flicks scheduled for late 2010 could make the switch. Green Lantern in 3-D, anyone?

Which ones should be in 3-D?

Henry Selick, the magic man behind painstaking puppetry in movies like Coraline and The Nightmare Before Christmas, is thinking way out of the 3D box. As the featured keynote speaker at this year's National Association of Broadcasters event in Las Vegas, Selick discussed "how digital technology has helped to revitalize the handcrafted approach of stop-motion animation." This was clearly apparent from Coraline, which even in its limited theatrical run made $74.8M, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com.

Selick also discussed the limits of 3D filmmaking; besides the cost and the time involved, 3D films have a limited time on the big screen because there just aren't as many theaters able to project 3D films. Now that the industry is hyping 3D, there are more films competing for those precious few theaters equipped with the technology. (Whether or not anyone really needed to see the Jonas Brothers's purity rings up close in three glorious dimensions is another story altogether.) Pixar's Up is even premiering at Cannes.

Meanwhile, DreamWorks's Jeffrey Katzenberg has been talking up 3D tech for years, and at a mini-preview of Monsters vs. Aliens I attended, even discussed the possibility of people eventually buying their own hip, stylish 3D glasses. Personally, I think 3D can make even the shoddiest movie ten times cooler -- I mean, what other reason is there to see the remake of My Bloody Valentine other than to duck a very realistic pick-axe aiming for your eye?