AVATAR being re-released to 3D cinemas worldwide in August. No, really.

AVATAR being re-released to 3D cinemas worldwide in August. No, really.

Jul 09

Did you see Avatar in the cinema? You know, with the silly 3D glasses on and hundreds of sheep people looking on in awe? Chances are you did… we all did. And if you didn’t see it in cinemas you most likely got the DVD or Blu-ray the day it came out or soon thereafter. Numbers indicate we all saw Avatar at some point. The big question is: would you pay money to go see it in the cinemas again, if you had the chance? Fox thinks you will. Fox are probably right.

The wise and powerful Mr. James Cameron has mistakenly thought he could fix/improve Avatar by adding eight whole minutes of never-before-seen extra footage that didn’t make it into the original cut and re-release the entire film to 3D cinemas across the globe– less than a year after it was originally released.

In some cities (like Sydney), the original film is still running. Avatar is already the highest grossing film of all time, who knows when it will stop making money. I should be baffled, disgruntled and scratching my head in confusion, but this makes sense. Heck, even I’m considering seeing it again, and I didn’t enjoy it like most people did.

If you’re a fellow Australian, you can catch Avatar in 3D again on 26 August 2010. The other international re-release dates, announced by Fox today, are listed below.

• Belgium – 8 September 2010
• Russia – 26 August 2010
• Spain – 17 September 2010
• UK – 27 August 2010
• India – 27 August 2010
• Japan – 16 October 2010
• South Korea – 16 September 2010
• Mexico – 15 October 2010
• Argentina – 16 September 2010

Would you pay to see TITANIC again, in 3D this time?

Would you pay to see TITANIC again, in 3D this time?

Jul 06

The LA Times confirms James Cameron is taking on the long task of converting Titanic into a 3D film for Fox, ready to be re-released in April 2012. That date marks 100 years since Titanic’s tragic sinking, and they seem to think re-releasing the film in 3D and selling even more tickets to see it would be a fitting way to capitalize on the occasion. I mean, why not?

The majority of the 3D films you see in cinemas were actually shot using standtard 2D cameras and then digitally altered for those uncomfortable 3D glasses to. Only a handful of films, likeAvatar, have been shot using the Fusion3D camera that shoots ‘true 3D. Obviously, being a 1997 release, Titanic would have to be converted to 3D. Apparently, if you spend enough time carefully rendering each frame, converted 3D can turn out OK. The quick, fast, cheap way looks horrible and is happening on so many movies it’s becoming hard to keep track.

I’l only willing to sit through Titanic again for three reasons:

1. Seeing it on the cinema screen again would be a blast
2. That guy hitting the propeller in 3D might be cool, and
3. Well… Kate Winslet topless in 3D. That could be worth the price of admission alone! Even if it does mean sitting through Titanic all over again.

Michael Bay, dishonest? Never! TRANSFORMERS 3 being shot in 3D

Michael Bay, dishonest? Never! TRANSFORMERS 3 being shot in 3D

Jul 03

Michael Bay 2009:

“The way I shoot is too aggressive for 3D cameras. It’s a time consuming thing,” said Bay. “Who knows… It might be a fad. I’m kinda old school. I’m old school because I like to shoot on film. I like anamorphic lenses, and that is old school.”

Fastforward to 2010:

“Trying to lay low and do what I do best. We took delivery of the first Alexa cameras for Hugo and have 23 more on the way. Transformers has also signed on to shoot 3D throughout the film …”

That quote is from Vince Pace, who is kind of a big deal in the world of 3D film production. All you and Transformhards who enjoyed the 3D-ness of Avatar will be pleased to hear that Transformers 3 is being shot in native 3D; I suppose Bay has finally gotten over his desperate attempts to legitimise his style by proving it to be “old school.”

Will Bay force the production of an anamorphic 3D lens? Will (irony of ironies) Michael Bay be the one to bridge the aesthetic gap between film and digital? Only time will tell.

PIRANHA 3D poster is all about the dimensions

PIRANHA 3D poster is all about the dimensions

Jun 23

Dimension have released a new poster for their upcoming horror film Piranha 3D and the tagline says everything we need to know about what kind of viewing experience to expect. “This Summer 3D shows its teeth.” I would have thought Avatar remains the only film to really show 3D’s ‘teeth’?

Bottom line, this is a horror film in 3D– the scares, characters and plot are pretty much set in stone. If you haven’t already seen the trailer and are in the mood for a chuckle, check it out. In the meantime, I’m going to watch Jaws again.

Piranha 3D is released 20 August in the UK and US. Fellow Australians will have to download it see it in cinemas a month later on 20 October, 2010.

Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY film sounds too good to be true

Alfonso Cuaron’s GRAVITY film sounds too good to be true

Jun 19

(Note — this film thankfully has nothing to do with Louis Leterrier’s similarly-named Gravity project)

I’m faced with a dilemma here. Alfonso Cuarón’s upcoming sci-fi thriller Gravity (starring Robert Downey, Jr.) will be shot and released in 3D. I don’t really like 3D. So do I see a slick, fresh film print of the movie and suffer the obviously video-based aesthetic, or to I see it as Hollywood intended in all its 3D glory? There’s pros and cons to each option, but it looks like I won’t have to decide until 2012.

Downey, Jr. will start production on Gravity this year, leave to shoot Sherlock Holmes 2, and then come back for the rest of Gravity. Sherlock Holmes 2 is due around Christmas 2011, so why won’t we see Gravity till 2012?

Because it’s roughly 60% CGI. And, you know, it takes time to render stuff in high-def 3D. I remember the last movie they said was going to be 60% CGI turned out to be about 95% CGI; I hope that doesn’t happen this time.

What else is there to get excited about? Well, the opening shot of Gravity is slated to last at least 20 minutes. Holy guacamole, Batman! That’s a lot of minutes! To put that in perspective, that’s like an entire episode of The Simpsons (minus ads). Anyone who’s seen Children Of Men should be salivating profusely by this point.

Gravity used to have Angelina Jolie on board, playing an astronaut on a space station who’s desperately trying to make her way back to Earth after an disastrous accident claims the lives of the rest of her team. The script (written by Cuarón’s 28-year-old son Jonás) was later changed to include a male astronaut (Downey, Jr.) and Jolie has since pulled out. Did I mention the opening shot goes for 20 minutes?

Here are some more tasty morsels from Framestore, the effects company handling Gravity‘s visuals (they also worked on Avatar, and Cuarón’s own Children Of Men and Prisoner Of Azkaban):

The entire film will be made here at Framestore. In effect the film, as Avatar was, is 60% CG feature animation with the balance being hybrid CG and live action elements.

Starring Robert Downey Junior, the film is a contemporary survival thriller that follows a woman as she attempts to make her way back to earth after a satellite crash sets off a chain reaction of further crashes. Because it’s set in space, most shots require every element to float in zero-gravity.

But then factor in that this a stylish Cuarón flick, directed with his trademark languid feel, and you begin to realize the full scale of our challenge. Cuarón’s long and fluid style (the opening shot alone is slated to last at least 20 minutes) leaves no cut points to hide behind. In short, this is a hybrid of a fully animated, photo-real feature film with a blockbusting visual effects movie.

This is CG feature animation meets real world on a large and beautiful scale.

2012 can’t come too soon for me.