Gondry Talks Green Hornet’s 3D Plans
Posted by Rodneyon 06. 05. 2010in News Chat
I have pretty high hopes for Green Hornet despite some of the horror stories and the roller coaster speculation. But then the bad rumours about the studio not being impresed turned out to be a rumour and then it was debunked while the studio decided to make it 3d in post.
FirstShowing quotes Gondry
“I have a lot of ideas. I’m not supposed to talk about that because people have a lot of opinions, but I’m the one who knows what it really means. It’s a tool that I’m really excited to embrace and I have tons of ideas. There’s one thing that has never been done and I can’t wait to do. That can only be done in 3D. I’m really excited to know that the studio is going for it. It shows, really, that they believe in the film. If they wanted to dump us, they wouldn’t have done this.”
I agree that applying a costly treatment to a movie in post does show a fair amount of confidence. Otherwise phrases like “why would we put another dime against that shitstorm?” might have come up. Just sayin.
What my concern is about his statement is the “never been done” angle. What exactly is it that can only be dont in 3D that he put in the movie that has never been done, that will be effectively applied when the movie is being converted to 3d in post.
The movie is DONE, and then they are going to apply the 3D. So what’s so unique and magical with this that wont work unless it is 3d? And why would you put something in the movie that will only “work” with 3d when the movie wasn’t made with the intent of 3d.
My head hurts.
This post was written by :
Rodney who has written 8899 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
ZDoes this film really need to be in 3-D?
2-D Rogen is fine enough, thanks though!
I feel like 3-D is a gimmick. I plan on seeing this in regular. If the film wasn’t meant to be shot in 3-D, the film is going to look odd just like a few other 3-D films that were recently released. Besides, 3-D isn’t something that is going to draw me to the theaters anyways.
I would agree to the “gimmick” argument, but common, this is Michel Gondry! Arent you interessted in what he can do with 3D technology?
I’m not too keen on the 3D “phenomenon”, but I must admit that I can’t wait to see how Gondry has used it – Surely, if it’s connected with Gondry, it’ll be pretty special? On the other hand, 3D as an afterthought isn’t always up to standard.
And now you’ve got me thinking about your questions such as “Why would you put something in the movie that will only “work” with 3d when the movie wasn’t made with the intent of 3d”. Thanks a lot for stretching my brain with taxing ponderings on this! ;)