http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movi...titans-3D.html
Critics are mixed about the value of the updated "Clash of the Titans" as a film. But they overwhelmingly agree about the value of its 3D effects. In a word: Lousy.
The LA Times notes: "It's doubtful that records are kept about this sort of thing, but consider the possibility that 'Clash of the Titans' is the first film to actually be made worse by being in 3D."
Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal adds, "A few more 3D spectacles like 'Clash of the Titans' and audiences will be clamoring for 2D."
The Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert, who gave the film a positive three out of four stars, has a piece of advice for moviegoers this weekend. "Explain to kids that the movie was not filmed in 3D and is only being shown in 3D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific."
"Clash of the Titans" -- a remake of a cult-favorite film that was released in 1981 -- was originally not envisioned as a 3D film. But then James Cameron's "Avatar," which also starred Sam Worthington, set box-office records worldwide. The success was based in part on its 3D effects, and Warner Bros. announced the already-completed "Clash of the Titans" would be converted to 3D. "Avatar," however, was filmed using special 3D cameras.
The studio was hoping that the "up-conversion" (as the post-shooting technique is known) could match the magic (and box-office cash) that was captured by "Avatar." But as far as it's 3D's concerned, it seems to have failed. Time will tell about the box office.
James Cameron, director of "Avatar," weighed in on the 3D debate -- and specifically in regard to "Clash of the Titans" -- in an interview with USA Today.
When asked about films that are up-converted, as opposed to shot specifically for 3D, Cameron said, "It's never going to be as good as if you shot it in 3D, but think of it as sort of 2.8D."
Even with up-converting, Cameron saying that it would be considered "2.8D" assumes that the proper time was taken for the convergence. When asked specifically about "Clash of the Titans," Cameron said, "They're converting 'Clash of the Titans' in eight weeks. But I'm guessing six months to a year to do it right."
Slate spoke to Phil Lelyveld, director of Consumer 3D Experience Lab, about what the effects of a lackluster 3D experience could mean to the future of 3D. Lelyveld was tentative in his response. "It's a new art form," he said. "We don't want to kill it before we figure out how to use it."
But, the power of the purse may have the ultimate say in whether 3D ever reaches its full cinematic potential. Theaters raised ticket prices for 3D films 8% last weekend, and if consumers feel like they are getting an inferior product at inflated prices, there could well be a backlash spelling the end of the 3D boom.
Future worries and bad reviews aside, "Clash of the Titans" is still expected to do very well.
3D or no 3D, this is still "Clash of the Titans" we're talking about. Prognosticators are predicting a fairly strong $60-$70 million gross at the box office over the weekend. The film may be fueled by being the first big effects-laden action film of the season, with a built-in fan base from the original film and competing against what could be described as strict counter-programming. "Clash" will clash this weekend against the Miley Cyrus vehicle "The Last Song" and Tyler Perry's "Why Did I Get Married Too?" It's a far cry from the original "Clash of the Titans," which was released on June 12, 1981 -- the same date as a film called "Raiders of the Lost Ark."