Thor, Captain America Coming In 3D

Topic started by Rorie on July 14, 2010. Last post by sopranosfan 2 years, 10 months ago.
Post by Rorie (3,216 posts) See mini bio

 The rich have monocles. The obscenely rich get golden monocles.
 The rich have monocles. The obscenely rich get golden monocles.
We're all excited about post-converted 3D, aren't we? Those glorious, sumptuous, barely-there three-dimensional images that we paid an extra six bucks to witness when we plunked down our money for Clash of the Titans or The Last Airbender? I know I enjoy watching the blurry, ill-defined movies that result! Which is why I'm super-excited by the news that both Thor and Captain America are going to be post-processed into 3D, according to the LA TImes, in a story which also gives us our first clear look at the three main Norse characters of the film. Check out this quote from Kenneth Branagh, director of Thor: 
 

 "We came to feel that in our case 3-D could be the very good friend of story and character for a different kind of experience," Branagh said, taking a break from post-production. "It's another draft of the story that can reveal itself in a different way."

Notice how it sounds like he's saying something, but is actually not saying anything at all. "Came to feel." "Could be." "Can reveal itself." At least Joe Johnston, who's gearing up for Captain America, has a more healthy attitude: 
 

"I think it tends to be overused and can be a little bit gimmicky," said Johnston, who began shooting last week in London but will travel to San Diego for Marvel's Comic-Con panel. "A lot of people are using 3-D now because they feel have they have to ... that will come and go and the pictures that deserve to be in 3-D will continue to be. When it's done bad, it can make you carsick."

I'm not usually that opposed to 3D - I didn't actually see Clash of the Titans - but holy mackeral was The Last Airbender ever one of the shittiest experiences I've yet had with the technology. I believe these guys when they say that the process can be done well when you plan for it well before your movie even starts filming, but I still find all the talk of having it lend more credence to your story and emotional accessibility and etc., etc. to be pretty disingenuous. Hopefully in a few years the 3D camera technology will be advanced enough to make the filmmaking experience no different than with traditional cameras.  
Post by Aarny (743 posts) See mini bio
Thor looks good, Odin would look far better without the silly eye patch and Loki looks lame.
Post by ThatFrood (321 posts) See mini bio
So I have a confession.
I don't like Kenneth Branagh.
His version of Hamlet was lackluster at best. It was inexplicably set in Versailles and the acting was... well... I'll be nice and say it "wasn't meant for film". Perhaps on stage it would have been stunning, but on the telly it was uninspired and cheesy, especially the tacky final scene he added where Hamlet is carried out of the hall with his arms spread out, held aloft, forming the shape of a cross. The camera fucking zooms in on it, it's so ham-handedly done I wanted to shout at someone.
And the random, useless war.
Post by garion333 (77 posts) See mini bio
 Kenneth Branagh is directing Thor? Wha?!? Who green lighted that?
Post by DrMadHatten (44 posts) See mini bio
Of course they are...
Post by MrPink (586 posts) See mini bio

@Matt Rorie:  Thank you for stating what I was thinking, and that's the fact the directors are indeed being disingenuous about the aspect of making the movies 3D.    
 
It is quite obvious some studio execs from Marvel/Disney "thought it'd be a good idea" to convert the films into 3D because, hey, look at these other movies for the kiddies, they're in 3D, too, by gollum.  Let's milk that cash cow while we can!
Seems like when the studio wants to make a movie 3D, it just sounds off alarm bells to me, possibly an indicator that the movie will tank.   I REALLY hope I am wrong with that line of thinking.  :( 
Post by hagridore (132 posts) See mini bio
I hate what 3D is doing to film. The good news is it will kill itself if filmmakers keep doing as bad a job as they presently are.
Post by onlineatron (243 posts) See mini bio
He has a monocle?!  
 
 
... must be a wizard.
Post by Burrobean (32 posts) See mini bio
When these films hit theaters, save your money and see them in 2D.  These constant conversions to 3D look like crap.  The one exception was the conversion of Nightmare Before Xmas, but they spent way more time, money and effort on that than any other I know of.  Unless it's shot in 3D, like Avatar, or rendered in 3D, like Toy Story 3, then Hollywood is only bilking the public by charging pricier admission for an inferior experience.  Personally, I can't wait for this current 3D craze to end.  But that won't happen until the public wises up and stops throwing money at the shoddy conversions.
Post by Phished0ne (35 posts) See mini bio
The only 3D movie i saw and actually enjoyed the experience  Was Phish3D(also what happened to the Phish3D page....i'm a sad hippy), in that case the 3D was actually really good. It allows you to sink into the concert experience more than just watching a regular old concert film. Allows you to see the depth of the crowd, it makes you feel a greater connection with the audience at the show, and the band on stage. You can see all the subtle physical cues for key or time signature changes between members.   Its a neat experience that allows you to see the band in a different way, a perspective you could never get unless you were lucky enough to be pulled on stage for some reason. But of course, that wasn't a conversion, it was filmed in 3d.
 
Also it never hurts when people start playfully throwing glowsticks in the theater ;)
Post by Pinescentzilla (186 posts) See mini bio
Sigh.....
Post by Olivaw (779 posts) See mini bio
@garion333 said:
"  Kenneth Branagh is directing Thor? Wha?!? Who green lighted that? "
A genius.
Post by Gabriel (224 posts) See mini bio
Why are Asgard gods wearing Ozymandias outfits?
Post by Lena_P (43 posts) See mini bio
That's not a monocle, because, you know, monocles are see through, being a single corrective lense as opposed to the more usual dual lenses worn in glasses.  Odin was the one-eyed god so that gold ... en ... *sigh* yeah, yeah I know.  But I'm anal, dammit!
Post by JeffGoldblum (339 posts) See mini bio
@Gabriel said:
" Why are Asgard gods wearing Ozymandias outfits? "
Those outfits are a far cry from Ozymandias's.
Post by jakob187 (969 posts) See mini bio
The more stills that I see from this movie, the more I realize that this flick looks like it will be bad in only a way that Kenneth Branaugh (sp?) can provide bad... 
 
...and I mean like how he actually "acted" in Wild Wild West...
Post by Lydian_Sel (2,023 posts) See mini bio
I'm so on the fence about Thor. I'm really interested to see how Kenneth Branagh handles a comic book film but I just never had any real love for the character.
Post by sopranosfan (1,055 posts) See mini bio
@Lydian_Sel:
Me either, I have always thought that he was probably the worst long running major comic book hero going.
216 votes, 3.7 avg.
General Information Edit
Name Thor
US Release May 6, 2011
UK Release April 27, 2011
AUS Release May 19, 2011
Runtime 115
Language(s)
Add a new language
Genre(s)
Add a new genre
Theme(s)
Add a new theme
Rating PG-13
Alias(es)
Top Rated Lists
Movies watched 2011 a list of 116 items by Christina
365 days=365 movie quotes a list of 365 items by arrowfan237
Every Movie Seen Since December of 2010! a list of 223 items by mylifeforAiur
  • In today's dollars
    Domestic $181,030,624
    Foreign +268,295,994
  • = total worldwide gross $449,326,618
  • - a reported budget of $150,000,000
  • = a 199.6% net profit of $299,326,618
Top Editors
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel