‘Wrath of the Titans’ to Be Converted Into 3D

Director Jonathan Liebesman wants to shoot on film instead of digital, citing advances in conversion technology.
BY |
‘Wrath of the Titans’ to Be Converted Into 3D

Wrath of the Titans will be converted into 3D in post-productionBattle: Los Angeles director Jonathan Liebesman is currently prepping the sequel Wrath of the Titans. He recently revealed that the project will be converted to 3D during post-production, instead of actually shooting in 3D.

Here's what he had to say about the decision to convert, with one of the reasons being he wants to shoot the sequel on film instead of digital.

"The big question was to shoot native 3D or not. I tested a lot of digital cameras, and quite frankly, because I'm going for a sort of much grittier, grounded look in Clash 2, the look I want is almost Gladiator with fantastical creatures in it, I found that the characteristics of film were more what I was going for."

The director also revealed he was hesitant about converting to 3D, given the negative backlash surrounding the conversion of Clash of the Titans. He was convinced by Warner Bros. to convert, though, after seeing the advances made in the technology.

"I didn't want to convert, but Warner Bros. showed me how far conversions have come. You've got Chris Nolan doing Inception, converting the DVD, you've got Harry Potter being converted, Star Wars being converted, so the conversion process has improved dramatically in the past two years."

Jonathan Liebesman also said that, unlike Clash of the Titans, Wrath of the Titans is being fully conceived as a 3D movie from the start.

"I think what you have to remember is the first film was neither shot nor edited with 3D in mind. It was shot as a 2D movie and edited as a 2D film, and they decided to convert it with six or seven weeks to go until release, which is insane; the technology was not there. That's why we're conceiving it from the start, from the ground up, in 3D, editing in 3D for 3D."

Wrath of the Titans was released March 30th, 2012.

Sources:Moviefone

Best of the Web

46 comments

Want to join the discussion?

Facebook Twitter
  • frank-ball • 3 years ago

    Swell, they went ahead and ruin it. Hopefully we have a choice whether to see it in 2d or 3d. Not like Thor where the suits made sure some theatres did not show it in 2D so you had no choice to pay for 3d prices. The greedy basterds. And sure Warner convinced him (Do it our way or you'll never work in this town again) and he decided they were right all along. And does Avengers (als converted) have to be in 3D?(yeah I know this belongs in another forum) but still, even the trailer itself doesn't look too hot for that anyways.

    reply

    • Marco-Balducci • 3 years ago

      ""The big question was to shoot native 3D or not. I tested a lot of digital cameras, and quite frankly, because I'm going for a sort of much grittier, grounded look in Clash 2, the look I want is almost Gladiator with fantastical creatures in it, I found that the characteristics of film were more what I was going for."

      WHAT A BIG, FAT EXCUSE! He could have reached it in post production but have a proper 3D engaging the audience...otherwise better leave it as it is! ABOLISH POST-CONV, SAVE OUR SIGHT ( and money!)

      reply

      • Felipe-Collazo • 4 years ago

        @zanyzap I didn't mean any of you, I meant the studio, how stubborn do they have to be to convert it to 3D after the last one was panned almost exclusively for it

        reply

        • themoviefanatic • 4 years ago

          As long as they post convert it in 3D one time, and not go back and forth, then it should be fine. If they were to go from 2D to 3D over and over again while the filming is happening, then i would be worried ;) .

          reply

          • emmytt • 4 years ago

            this is the same f*cking reason (at-least one big f*cking reason) why the first one sucked! idiots!

            reply

            • equialuv • 4 years ago

              why oh why does everything have to be in 3d anymore? Some of us like regular 2d films and would rather that not everyone jumped on the 3d bandwagon

              reply

              • andrew-thompson • 4 years ago

                he should worry more about the acting and how well the story is written before worrying about 3d or not 3d...

                reply

                • daveactor7 • 4 years ago

                  Anyone else got a migraine after seeing the horrendous 3D of the first film? (which still sucked)

                  reply

                  • dr-carter • 4 years ago

                    This is the same reason the first one was horrible. There was no 3D in the movie at all when I saw it only the credits. Movies that convert to 3D after shooting does not look 3D at all.

                    reply

                    • kickass-14 • 4 years ago

                      After the horrible reviews the 3D got for the first film they're still converting this sh*t!

                      reply

                      • dan1 • 4 years ago

                        Yep, there goes any shred of hope I had for this project.

                        reply

                        • rojodiablo • 4 years ago

                          You're not in the minority as far as I'm concerned. I think this will be a huge improvement. A good way to judge how much better the conversion has gotten as well.

                          reply

                          • moviefreak97 • 4 years ago

                            I know I'm in the minority, but I personally feel this is a good decision. Yes, the first film had a crap conversion, but at least they're not doing the sequel as a quick cash grab. Plus, now we'll have a much better looking 2D version to experience. Admittedly, I'm looking forward to the film itself as well for two reasons:

                            1.) The original Ray Harryhausen picture was no masterpiece to begin with and re-imaginings are always a mixed bag. This time they don't have a father film to piggyback on.

                            2.) It's a new director. Now, that could be a good thing or a bad thing, but its a good enough reason to give the sequel a shot.

                            reply

                            • incmob • 4 years ago

                              Didnt they learn their lesson on the first film????? just goes to show how little money a studio will put into a film to make a bigger profit... hopefully they put a lot more effort in the film this time around, but wouldn't be surprised if they dont.

                              reply

                              • skywise • 4 years ago

                                @zanyzap couldnt agree more.

                                reply

                                • moviegeek • 4 years ago

                                  FAILLLLL!

                                  reply

                                  • zanyzap • 4 years ago

                                    @Felipe-Collazo: I'm not being stubborn. I thought the first one sucked on the whole; the weak 3D job was only ONE complaint.

                                    reply

                                    • skywise • 4 years ago

                                      @furankisan absolutly, while we watch movies for fun or excape it is nothing more than a buisness. Granted its a multi million (billion) doller industry and obviously if there as no money to be made it wouldnt happen. With the economy in the state its in and movie goers staying home with net flix and red box they are having to do something to get people back in the audience....like i said, its a gimmick.

                                      reply

                                      • furankisan • 4 years ago

                                        @skywise ...You and me and alot of us grew up with Harryhausen and those never needed 3D. I'm glad their going ahead with this as far as Greek Mythology goes and just wish Percy Jackson succeeded. There are so many tales to tell from this. But jeeez they don't learn. Just drop the 3D and concentrate on the stories. 3D belongs to animation kiddies or not. Walter Mursh said it already. But the Mighty Holy Dollar wins at the end all the time.

                                        reply

                                        • skywise • 4 years ago

                                          @moviemaniac66 I believe that 3-D has a place in modern movies but for me its something for the kids. Like in Desp*cable me tit was done in a very interesting way and the kids in the audience loved it. But i agree with you overall. It is a gimmick and its a way for the studios to drain our bank accounts.

                                          reply

                                          Popular Stories

                                          Latest Headlines

                                          ‘Scream Queens’ Preview Goes Behind-the-Scenes

                                          ‘Scream Queens’ Preview Goes Behind-the-Scenes

                                          Series creator Ryan Murphy and cast members Keke Palmer, Lea Michele, Emma Roberts and more explain the plot of ‘Scream Queens’ in a new preview.

                                          By Brian Gallagher | 1 hour ago

                                          10 Shares0 Comments

                                          Around the Web

                                          Popular Movies