'Clash of the Titans' 3-D conversion gets a very lackluster review

There's been a ton of buzz about Warner Bros.' upcoming "Clash of the Titans," which the studio believes could be its next blockbuster release when it hits theaters April 2. But in the 3-D geek community, the film has been drawing fire ever since it became apparent that the Sam Worthington-starring film was getting the quickie 3-D conversion treatment, making it look like Warner Bros. was exploiting the explosion of moviegoer willingness to pay an extra $3 bucks to see big-screen extravaganzas in 3-D.

No less an authority than James Cameron has spoken out against 3-D conversions, calling it "typical of Hollywood getting it wrong," saying specifically of the "Clash of the Titans" quickie conversion: "If you want to make a movie in 3-D, make the movie in 3-D."

So there's a lot riding on audience reaction to "Clash." The movie is expected to open strong, but if it fades quickly in subsequent weekends, naysayers will put much of the blame on bad word of mouth about its 3-D effects. If it holds up, rival studios will no doubt assume that audiences were willing to accept a quickly converted movie -- and plow ahead with even more 3-D conversions of their own. 

So I was eager to see an early review from ShoWest, where Warner Bros. screened nearly 10 minutes of "Titans" clips. And the reaction was -- extremely underwhelming. Slashfilm's Peter Sciretta, who was on hand, had this to say:

 "I will be completely honest -- it did not look great. It looked passable. ... To me, the live-action post-converted 3D footage looked very unnatural. At times the characters appeared to stand out like cardboard cutouts, while other times they appeared to be graphed to a computer generated 3D model, and it just looked odd. The computer animated elements look a little better, but as a whole it was a subpar experience." 

It will be interesting to see if rank-and-file movie fans are just as tough on the picture as Sciretta and other ardent bloggers and 3-D enthusiasts. Unless audiences start voting with their feet, we can expect more quickie conversions as studios continue their rush to cash in on the land-rush business movies like "Alice in Wonderland" have been doing in 3-D screenings.

Warner Bros. chieftain Alan Horn announced at ShoWest that all of the studio's upcoming tent-pole movies will be released in 3-D. And that's a lot: The studio, which already has five 3-D movies scheduled for release this year, will have a whopping nine movies slated for 3-D in 2011. Many of those will be conversions, so I'm betting that Hollywood's 3-D conversion mania will be in full swing for some time to come.  

Photo: A scene from "Clash of the Titans." Credit: Warner Bros.

RELATED:

Is Jim Cameron talking out of both side of his mouth on 3-D conversions?

Comments

[MC D-Lyte]

I do not like this trend very much indeed. Another bad one was with a Alice movie in 3-D that is so bad to me

http://tinyurl.com/ybxqvzk

[CT]

"Alice in Wonderland" was not a great 3D experience. Watching any movie attempting to use 3D conversion after "Avatar" is going to be a disappointment. I would agree with Cameron, if you want to make a 3D movie, then shoot it in 3D. Watching "Alice" for the first 5 minutes and you can notice the difference. Personally, I will not be going to to see anymore 3D conversion movies. I want to see "Clash of the Titans" but it's going to be in 2D!

[Steph W]

this is good, now I know I don't have to bother seeing the 3D version and save some $$

[Tim Johnson]

I thought that "Alice in Wonderland" was also a conversion from 2D to 3D, as opposed to Avatar, or How To Train Your Dragon, which were both created with two cameras from the start. If audiences have already embraced Alice, they have already voted for the less satisfying 2d to 3D post-process.

[Brian Murrell]

The reason why it didn't look good is because they were running the light level around 3 Footlamberts. I have seen this trailer ran where I work at 6FL and its amazing. I am not sure why for the past two years at ShoWest, the techs that set up these projectors don't do whats right and increase the light level. Other wise it looks like a dim fuzzy piece of sh*t on the screen. More light, the better the 3D looks.

[stevo]

The studios and the manufacturers are deluding themselves if they think that the average consumer is going to rush out and buy a 3d television with 3d goggles, a 3d blu ray player, and 3d blu ray discs. Sufficient 3d content doesn't exist. Even Cameron will admit that 3d movie making is an electronic approximation at best. Gamers and porn purveyors will be first adopters. Ask Jim Cameron why I should buy the non 3d blu ray version of Avatar? That doesn't make sense either, especially when Jim and Fox ask me to buy the 3d version later. S....... that.

[David]

That's a great idea-taking a product that finally gets your business up to 21st century standards, creates massive buzz, and is supposedly the "savior" of the industry, and then dilute it with crap. Oh so Hollywood, never thinking long term.
All it takes is one or two bad experiences with 3D movies in the theater and audiences will second guess the premium 3D pricing and wait for the movie on DVD, where they will watch on their---3D TVs!!!
Back to square one, how do we get people in the theaters again. Shame on Warner Bros, shame.

[Lizzie]

Let's give WB credit for standing behind the production and letting it be viewed at ShoWest, many others might open it blind.

[T.V.]

I saw the ShoWest clips of the 3D conversion of Clash of the Titans. It looked terrible! Bloody awful. Save your money unless you want a big headache.

[JT]

The 3D clips I've seen of Clash of the Titans looked amazing - that's the way to see a movie like this. I'd see it in 3D and 2D! It's monsters and gods and krakens!