Titans and Potter films to be released in3D
We reported last week that the studio was close to making a decision on converting Clash of the Titans in 3D and apparently the studio was so pleased with the early conversion tests that it was decided that the Potter films were to be converted as well.
However, the studio refused to confirm the site's report, although they expect an announcement on Clash of the Titans by the end of the week, with confirmation on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II said to follow.
The site also reported that the release date for Clash of the Titans has been pushed one week to April 2.
Clash of the Titans was released April 2nd, 2010 and stars Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Flemyng, Gemma Arterton, Alexa Davalos, Tine Stapelfeldt, Mads Mikkelsen. The film is directed by Louis Leterrier.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 was released November 19th, 2010 and stars Bill Nighy, Emma Watson, Richard Griffiths, Harry Melling, Daniel Radcliffe, Julie Walters, Bonnie Wright, Rupert Grint. The film is directed by David Yates.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 was released July 15th, 2011 and stars Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Evanna Lynch, Domhnall Gleeson. The film is directed by David Yates.
Comments (43)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
The Narrator: The Better Man
Johnnyblaze, if TDK WAS is 3D it wouldn't have made much more money. Its not that type of movie, and would be pointless.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
CBF
@Rufio I completely agree with you.
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Johnnyblaze09
They already decided it and actually only Clash of the Titans 2010 is being improved to 3D, not the 2- Harry Potter's, means the 2_HPs will be made in 3D from ground just like Avatar and other original 3D films. Making this mentioned films in 3D would give lots of benefits to the studios/makers, a higher sales same number of viewers, exactly like Avatar, moved hugely by its huge 'sales'...(wink) Like, if only the 'The Dark Knight' was in 3D, it had grossed higher, you just do the math how much. So this is the reason, possibly, why studios realized now to make 3D versions cause it would help gained a lot of extra money absolutely and their only problem is if viewers would love to see it again with partners.
2 years agoby @johnnyblaze09Flag
Illuminati
hell they protested when SOUND and COLOR came into film, claiming that will be a passing fad. Just like that time will be the determinant.
Elements like birds eye-view, extreme closeups, swish pan shots, cgi, imax, twist/surprize endings, alternate endings, inter-connecting stories, sequels, prequels, remakes were all 'new' gimmicks at one point in time. Some of these have improved the quality of a film where as others have not changed a bad film.
3D is the same. Rufio and Clockwork emphasized on how 3D SHOULD be used, i whole heatedly agree. But it will be a hit and miss, depending on the directors and studios. But 3D is here to stay...
2 years agoby @illuminatiFlag
Batman Rules !!!
clash of the titans 3D. Im in :)
2 years agoby @the-fallenFlag
Josh
I'm surprised they're not converting Iron Man 2 to 3D.
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
Rufio
totally with @clockworkcookie - if it doesn't jack up the content of the movie (like TDK/IMAX scenes) then i have no issue with that sort of technology. where i part ways with him and (as I have voiced countless times here) side with @illuminati is that 3D is a gimmick. it (1) does not enhance the movie experience (at least not yet - see my comments below on this one), (2) it is used to draw more people into the theater, not improve the movie, (3) changes the viewing experience making audience members wear headache-inducing glasses for 2-3 hours to see the "effect" (whereas the IMAX scenes were seamlessly integrated into TDK - whether you were in an IMAX theater or not, the quality of those scenes were pristine, they didn't cost viewers more $$ to see them - unless you saw the film in an IMAX theater - and they didn't require special gear on the audiences' part to see them).
so 3D is very gimmicky. the rumored Twister sequel being in 3D is one that I think could revolutionize the 3D world (or maybe Toy Story 3) if they attempt to have the story actually leap from the screen (leading audience members to reach out and try to touch the items or jump out of reflex).
2 years agoby @rufioFlag
Goku_ssj2
This is retarded, if they wanted to film 3D they should have started with that in mind from the beginning not now when the movies are almost done.
2 years agoby @goku-ssj2Flag
Clockworkcookie
@Illuminatti: I only think it's a "gimmick" when movies are specifically conceived to look good on 3D, which is not the case with these 2. Personally I'm ok with this trend as long as it's got no influence on the content of the actual movies. Kinda like the IMAX scenes in TDK. I never got a chance to see it on that format but I still saw an excellent movie because it wasn't relying on those effects to look good.
2 years agoby @clockworkcookieFlag
Rufio
3 D is not 3D. 3D simply means the images appear to be lifted from the screen. back in the day 3-D meant the images on the screen would appear to fly at you. the scripts and cinematography were intentionally written and shot to have things jump, shoot and fly off the screen at you (like Captain EO, Honey I Shrunk the Audience attractions at Disney World). 3D today is not an experience. it doesn't change the film experience. it just costs more, wastes production company's time (instead of focusing on story development they focus on effects/3D), and forces audience members to wear ridiculous, headache-inducing glasses.
HP has done jst fine without 3D. Clash OBVIOUSLY was not made to be a 3D film - the fact that they're forcing the medium AFTER the fact just proves my point further.
2 years agoby @rufioFlag
Lizcole2
Ole happy day, another movie done in 3D :(
2 years agoby @lizcole2Flag
CBF
HP in 3D????
NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
2 years agoby @comicbookfanFlag
Illuminati
i can't believe people haven't 'woken' up to the 3D trend. It is indeed a gimmick, but it's here to stay guys, so let's just accept it.
I do agree with ERR, not every movie should be made 3D, but with action flicks i don't really mind it.
2 years agoby @illuminatiFlag
DareDevil
i agree...not all movies are meant for 3D experience. Avatar was an exception. it was made for this..but harry porter,c'mon...that does not make sense..seems like warner bros is going nuts with Avatar's success and think that the only thing made avatar good was because it was in 3D...WRONG...Avatar was different..i still prefer to watch other movies in normal 2D format even if they come out in 3D..
please,doing spoil the fun of 3D,give us something unique once a while,pusshing all the junk in 3D will just make the ongoing interest worst.nothing else.
2 years agoby @sunnyboy4uFlag
The Boondock Saint
2 years agoby @combatmadness360Flag
Cripple
Clash of the Titans in 3D could be cool. Don't know about Harry Potter though.
2 years agoby @crippleFlag
ed_wood
Converting to 3D could be a bad idea, but I still don't see the big deal. If you don't like 3D don't go see it.
2 years agoby @ed-woodFlag
Dan
I don't like the idea of "converting" a movie to 3D. If it was made from the ground up, as some have suggested, in 3D, well that might be a different story, but this conversion can't possibly be as immersive as a movie that filmed in 3D from the beginning.
2 years agoby @dan1Flag
iatehisliver
yes 3D awesome they really want big bucks from these films
2 years agoby @iatehisliverFlag
Jprocks
harry potter in 3D kick @@s
2 years agoby @jprocksFlag
LuxoIII
I'm really getting sick of the whole "3D this and 3D that" most people don't even like it!! Avatar was an exception, but that's because it was built from the ground up in 3D, but with most movies (like these) they just tack it on.
2 years agoby @brady1138Flag
Johnnyblaze09
Maybe they thought it was just the 3D that brought Avatar very successful. But I am afraid not, or maybe yes about at least twenty-five percent of it more or less. Either bad or good cause this films could possibly looked like real 3D to us. (wink)
2 years agoby @johnnyblaze09Flag
Structure (ONSTRA)
YES YES YESSSSSSSSS. YES YES YES YES YESSSSSSS.. I AM GOING TO BE THERE.... YESS
2 years agoby @gaj1992Flag
ZanyZap
Good point Diaigma. Like suicidal thoughts. They should definitely iron out the kinks.
2 years agoby @zanyzapFlag
Narzion
Err has a perfect point
2 years agoby @narzionFlag
Josh
I agree with Err. Conversion into 3D adds nothing to the film. I think I'll be watching these films in the 2D version.
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
The Narrator: The Better Man
err has a good point. Avatar scored big in 3D because he planned it all to be that way. He knew what we would be seeing, not throwing it on after the movie's been made.
And lol Diaigma. I agree.
2 years agoby @narratorFlag
MovieWiz001
Cool, but can we give 3D a break? I'm excited for them though.
2 years agoby @moviewiz001Flag
Frolicinthewoods91
Harry Potter in 3D will be pretty wicked. I'm excited for these movies.
2 years agoby @frolicinthewoods91Flag
Err
if youre gonna make a movie 3d you have to take that sh*t into consideration before you start filming.
with all the ridiculous close-ups and sh*t that directors use these days, 3D just doesnt work, you need more wide angle sh*t for 3D to really be effective.
2 years agoby @err2005Flag