Clash of the Titans 2D to 3D conversion is slated by critics

Clash of the Titans is just one in a string of films to be filmed completely in 2D and then later be converted to 3D for a cinema release. But reports from early screenings are suggesting that the 3D conversion on Titans is awful.

The film has been converted to 3D in just 10 weeks using View-D™, the system from Prime Focus. Titans director Louis Leterrier described the initial 3D conversion tests that Prime Focus did as “jaw-dropping” but it seems the critics disagree, or perhaps this particular conversion has simply been too rushed.

Viewers and critics coming out of this mornings advance screenings have described that actors appear completely flat (one reviewer likened them to cardboard cutouts) when watching the movie and have recommended watching the film in 2D rather than 3D.

Earlier this week James Cameron warned against such  2D  to 3D conversions, saying specifically of the Clash of the Titans conversion that “If you want to make a movie in 3-D, make the movie in 3-D.”

This early negative reactions don’t sit well for the studios as they were relying on good 3D ticket sales from Titans to give a thumbs up to similar conversions, espeically after the other recent conversion from 2D to 3D of  Tim Burtons Alice In Wonderland also got quite bland reviews.

So what do you think – will you be watching it in 3D or 2D?

About The Author

3 Responses

  1. MattWBP

    Sadly, 2D to 3D conversions will often look like cardboard cutouts because the film is rotoscoped in flat layers – An entire person will usually be a single layer and so the 3D is not created with the subtlety of the depth of someones facial features or overall body position included.

    If you spent 10 times as much time doing the conversions, you would see better results as more rotoscoping of features means more levels can be added to the depth of a scene. But ultimately it’s not just easier, but also cheaper and better looking to actually film stereoscopic footage.

    Cameron’s right. If you want to make a 3D film, shoot it in 3D.

    Reply
  2. 3Dfan

    I may be a fan of 3D, but if studios think quick bad conversions are the future, I say we need a few 3D flops to pound the message into their heads. If in 3D, film in 3D. Only exceptions to me are G-Force (It was decided mid filming and there are only a few shots that were badly done) and Alice (I could hardly tell it was converted, except for one or two scenes.

    Reply
  3. Jalileo

    I went to see Clash of the Titans today with eager anticipation and was looking forward to a visual delight, after having seen Avatar over the Christmas break. All I can say in one word is: “Bullshit!”

    If I had known the film was a mere 2D conversion, I’m sure I would have foregone this film, opting instead to watch Avatar a second time which I think, in hindsight, would have been wiser.

    The film is flawed in so many ways, not least because of its underwhelming visual appeal, its lack of ‘3Dness’ but also because the story is just as flat as the visuals. The characters are disappointing, not given enough time to develop and the plot inevitable and obvious. But the storyline misgivings could have been forgiven if the film delivered what it was supposed to deliver – a grandiose, an extravagant ocular 3D delight that it was supposed to provide. Instead it crashes meteorically and deserves to be relegated to a second rate ‘B’ flick.

    Perhaps ‘Avatar’ has raised the bar far too high for ordinary films to satisfy a significantly cleverer film-going population. We’ve seen the delights that a ‘properly’ constructed movie from the hands of James Cameron can bring to cinema and we won’t stand for being treated like imbeciles – 2D to 3D conversion my curry-burning ass!

    I think I’ll wait another ten years when James Cameron decides to make Avatar 2 – until then I think I’ll forego any more ‘3D’ movies and save the money to buy the blue-ray of Avatar when it comes out.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.