• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clash of The Titans?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The rattlesnake-gorgon Medusa was actually pretty scary when I saw it as a kid.
But yeah, Holly would ruin it with excessive CG.
 
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Clash of the Titans kicks ass! At the same time though, remember that it was made at the same time as Star Wars Empire Strikes Back. Clash of the Titans' special effects were stuck back in the glory days of Harryhausen's Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. They just can't compare to what ILM was putting out at the time.
Click to expand...

I remember Jason and the Argonauts- wasn't there one scene where Jason killed a giant statue come to life by turning a valve on its achilles heel or sole?😛
 
I watched that movie at least 100 times as a kid. I wonder if it's on BR now. I'd watch the new one and give it a shot but the original was a classic in my eyes.
 
BUMP!!!
Even more info. Looks like casting is complete. I have no idea how much filming is done. It is scheduled for release on March 29th. As far out as that is, it could change.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800320/
Cast looks pretty decent. Those pics make me believe it will be another 3D fest like 300 or Alexander.
 
Is there any sort of trailer for the new one or have they not actually started shooting yet? This is the first I've heard of it.
 
OK, I dont watch TV much so I finally just saw a trailer yesterday while at a bar.
Looks alright. Just for the fun factor I will probably go see it at Imax. I missed Star Trek at Imax and do not wanna make that mistake again.


NO POLL!
Sorry but the new poll system wont allow me to do what I wanna do.
 
Okay, I am definitely set on seeing this movie.

But I have a question:
Will this be at all worthwhile to see in 3D?
I mean, seeing a movie that was filmed in 3D in it's 3D glory, I think that is worthwhile. With a competent director and cinematographers, it ends up being an amazing 3D visual treat, ala Avatar.

But this movie was 2D, and like so many movies in the near future, the studios are saying "by golly, Avatar made a ton of money. Let's do 3D conversions for all our big movies!", and I'm a little concerned. I mean, if the conversion is done decently, it could be an enjoyable spectacle.
But I am worried about it being a terrible conversion.
And if it can even have that "looking through a window" image since it wasn't even filmed in 3D...

so ATOT, what say yous?
This movie is a definite will-see in 2D regardless. Unlike Avatar, where I saw it for the 3D and 3D only. 🙂
 
I'm not really that interested in this, but if I see it I will only see it in 2D. 3D has yet to be worthwhile in anything and in many cases detacts from the film, for me anyway. Closest thing to it being worthwhile was in Avatar, but even then, it was only ok.

KT
 
Lurknomore said:
The rattlesnake-gorgon Medusa was actually pretty scary when I saw it as a kid.
But yeah, Holly would ruin it with excessive CG.
Click to expand...

I think it's still pretty terrifying.



....my input after being subjected with countless previews:

This remake will absolutely suck. It almost looks like Michael Bay made this shit pile. it seems as though the original was loosely adapted to fit a God of War-esque story...which would be nothing like the original.

For whatever reason....I really, really want to see it in the theater!
:awe:
 
KeithTalent said:
I'm not really that interested in this, but if I see it I will only see it in 2D. 3D has yet to be worthwhile in anything and in many cases detacts from the film, for me anyway. Closest thing to it being worthwhile was in Avatar, but even then, it was only ok.

KT
Click to expand...

yeah, this too. I will not be seeing it in 3D. All of the current 3D (excluding Avatar), is still rendered after being filmed in 2D, correct?
 
zinfamous said:
yeah, this too. I will not be seeing it in 3D. All of the current 3D (excluding Avatar), is still rendered after being filmed in 2D, correct?
Click to expand...

Imax is not that much more expensive than regular theaters. Leaning towards seeing it there. Saw Alice in Wonderland there and was impressed.
 
zinfamous said:
yeah, this too. I will not be seeing it in 3D. All of the current 3D (excluding Avatar), is still rendered after being filmed in 2D, correct?
Click to expand...

For the most part, yeah. It's too expensive to use "true" 3D because you have to have two cameras for each shot/angle. Most of the industry is still using film so it's vary time consuming to edit. That's why the 3D TV is a gimmick since no networks are going to upgrade their equipment.

I'm guessing the process they're using now to create simulated 3D is mostly automated. All done with powerful render farms no doubt.

I kind of want to see this movie though. Don't know if I'll go see it in 3D.
 
mmntech said:
For the most part, yeah. It's too expensive to use "true" 3D because you have to have two cameras for each shot/angle. Most of the industry is still using film so it's vary time consuming to edit. That's why the 3D TV is a gimmick since no networks are going to upgrade their equipment.

I'm guessing the process they're using now to create simulated 3D is mostly automated. All done with powerful render farms no doubt.

I kind of want to see this movie though. Don't know if I'll go see it in 3D.
Click to expand...

the new Sony cameras designed by Cameron for use in Avatar use dual lenses, so the captured images for a single camera are stereoscopic.

He did use a separate neck-mounted camera specifically for facial detail, but that was a digital effects requirement, not really needed for the 3D.
 
when it's slow, i like to take a long lunch and go to the movies - that's the best time... even on opening day (during the school year), it's not crowded at all.
 
zinfamous said:
the new Sony cameras designed by Cameron for use in Avatar use dual lenses, so the captured images for a single camera are stereoscopic.

He did use a separate neck-mounted camera specifically for facial detail, but that was a digital effects requirement, not really needed for the 3D.
Click to expand...

It's the lenses that are the most expensive part of the camera though.
 
I'm kinda mixed on this. I don't normally like remakes, let alone ones where they just go and CGI the hell out of everything. The first preview I saw of this looked pretty bad, but the more recent one looked better. I think they could make this one good, but the cheesiness of the original will be always be fun.
 
sdf-009.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top