WB wants 3D Inception and 3D Batman 3

Rodney 45 Comments

Seems that Nolan won’t be able to hold out on 3D any longer if WB has anything to say about it.

It appears that with the onset of 3D, WB is looking to double back on Inception, which dodged the 3D bullet and will be insisting that Batman 3 be filmed in 3D as well.

IGN says:

Warner Bros.’ 3D plans for Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Inception, as well as his planned sequel to The Dark Knight.

Inception is being considered for a 3D conversion, in part because of HBO’s plan to launch a new 3D on-demand channel early next year.

I know the small percentage of 3D nay sayers are very vocal so they sound like a big crowd, but this 3D thing is not a fad, or a fallback gimmick.

But 3D is a new technology this time around, and like the onset of ANY special effect used in film, this doesn’t appear to be a fad.

Yeah, you can stomp your feet around and get sent to bed without your supper screaming that you are going to boycott movies forever if they go 3D. Go enjoy your VHS.

An entire movie network is being launched to provide 3D TV owners with the option of watching movies in 3D, and while not every movie NEEDS to be in 3D, it seems that many effects heavy films are going that way. If this were a passing fad like the old red/blue 3D phase, they wouldn’t be investing this much money in upgrading cinemas, creating home theater technology, and now TV channels being offered in 3D for movies and sporting events.

The big question is, with Nolan writing his own ticket - will he tolerate it and adapt to the new technology, or resist and risk his studio relationships?

He isn’t God. He is just a man who has made some awesome movies.

About Rodney

View all posts by Rodney →

You may like these posts

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Steve

    I have gotten sick every time I go to a 3D movie and I have determined that I can never see one again. The sad news is that the studios are pushing ahead in making 3D movies and they know people get sick watching them. There are two movies I want to see but they are only going to be in a 3D format. This well keeps me from watching them. We need to start boycott these movies forcing them to offer 2D version so people can have a choice for those who are physically unable to watch a 3D movie. They are discriminating against those who become handicapped because 3D makes them physically ill. If they do not make a 2D version of the movies I like then I will be forced to stop going the theaters because there are no movies I well be able to watch. This makes me sad because I will never be able to see Thor, Captain America and what other movies they make into 3D. Maybe it is Time to start boycotting

  • fullmetal_medji

    So, 2-D it is. LoL

  • Mr. James

    I’ve already commented on this post before but after reading all of the other comments I feel like Rodney is being VERY hard on a lot of us by labeling us whiny cry-babies opposed to change. I think that the vast majority of us are not opposed to 3D in theory and application. I think we all feel that the marketing of the “gimmick” (and yes Rodney, in the marketing sense, it IS a gimmick!) has been very forced and heavy-handed towards the moviegoers that the studios all say they are considering with this new technique.

    It’s a hard economy right now and Hollywood is looking for every cent they can grab and we as the ticket buyers are allowing them to suck our wallets dry. I personally have been spending less and less at the theaters and allowing my Netflix and Blu-Ray purchases to rise. Is watching these same movies in my home a lesser experience? Nope. Is it costing me less to watch them? Yep. Are more people going to start doing the same thing I am. ABSOLUTELY. There will probably still be a few theaters left out there in the next 10 or 20 years but sooner or later I still predict that they will go the same route as the drive-in experience. Something our children and grandchildren will have no connection to or knowledge of its wonders. Sad, yes. Will I still be enjoying my virtual movies at home?! Heck YES!

    • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

      You nailed it on the head. “allowing them to suck our wallets dry”

      Allowing.

      Am I being hard on people for crying about this gimmick/fad/technique or whatever you want to call it? Yes. Reality is hard.

      If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

      Is Hollywood trying to get your money? You act like that is something NEW. They are ALWAYS trying to get your money, long before 3D.

      This is not a “new way to get your money” its the same way, and its added value. Don’t think it is added value? Then don’t see the 3D versions. Very rarely is a theater only showing the 3D version.

      The increase in boxoffice, and consistent ticket sales for 3D, as well as the onset of home theater advances and no sign of Hollywood letting this go? Reality.

      Call it what you want. I call it business and you still pay for it.

      You don’t have to. Stop blaming them for “abusing you” during this economy. Movies are not a necessity in life. If you can’t afford a few more bucks, then DONT GO. No one is making you.

      “The bad economy” is the worst excuse EVER. If the “economy” was such a deterrent, then they wouldn’t raise prices. Retail stores lower prices to keep competitive on the market. Cinemas keep raising the prices and you keep paying them. Why would they want to change that? Don’t like it? Then stop buying it. If no one went to the 3D films, they would stop making them.

      • Cloud720

        I live in NYC and I can tell you it is very common for Tuesdays to only play movies in 3d. Only 2 of more than 20 Tuesdays were playing shreck in 2 d. I still haven’t seen that movie because I wasn’t going to travel the extra distance. Yes I had the choice but it sucks that they don’t care about losing my dollar because they are making the money in the additional charge everyone else pays. Even when people only pay it cause they have no option.

      • cloud720

        I have no idea why that says tuesdays and not theaters. Ipad auto correct maybe.

  • Anti-Septic

    Getting sick of having 3D pushed upon me, in another two years this will blow over and maybe 3D will become the norm and I wont have to listen to all this 3D debate anymore.

    Yes there are some films I want to see in 3D, not so much in other such as the 3rd Batman film. Nolan has done a masterful job of creating a Batman world. Would 3D bring anymore to that other than some novelty and higher ticket prices?

  • Daniel

    I don’t really care to see these films in 3D, except maybe Inception. I’m no Roger Ebert but I don’t feel the need for every action film to be in 3d (obvious hyperbole).

    Titanic would be cool in 3d though.

  • J Cribbs

    3D is a fad. One that studios are buying into, but it’s a fad.

    • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

      Not a fad. And it’s not the studios buying into them, it’s the majority of movie patrons.

      The studios don’t go with things that don’t sell and “fads” don’t get theater overhauls, networks, and home theater advancements for.

      • chuckinindy

        Overhauls are part of the cost of doing business and would happen regardless of new technology. Like the conversion from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray or black n’ white tv’s to color tv’s to flat screen tv’s, everything is about the almighty dollar and to get the herds to keep spending them. Upgrades or change are a part of life and right now, what I believe the “fad” comment meant is that the market is over saturated with 3D and the thrusters need to be pulled back a little. I propose a rule, If a movie needs to be in 3D (for no other reason than being in 3D) film it in 3D and stop converting something new (Clash of the Titans) or old (Star Wars) in to 3D. I suppose the creative well is getting pretty dry in Hollywood and especially with Lucas when all he can do is keep morphing and meshing Star Wars in to the latest and greatest technology. I (along with the majority of patrons you mention) would like to see something new from Lucas like a prequel or sequel to the Star Wars franchise on the big screen but that wouldn’t be as easy as say converting or running something pre-existing through the 3D filter on the computer would it?

  • JC Cummings

    I think Batman would be great in 3D as long as its shot in 3D and not a made over effect. Why would WB want to be left on the ‘side of the road’ while so many other studios are in the 3D game?

    The new demographic of movie goers expect more from the big screen. The gaming industry has trained them well. I believe, it will separate the cinema from local television viewing, a missing link since television evolved.

    With the conversion of theaters taking place in the US, I’m betting on theaters to find their niche as a true entertaining experience, short of a theme park. The other 100 thousand theaters emerging around the world will be set up to handle 3D and digital cinema as a common form. As far as digital or HD, the writing was on the wall, we had to convert, to keep distribution costs inline.

    Television 3D will only grow in the coming years as the demand increases. It’s a fact, older demographic audiences don’t like the glasses, but kids love them. 3D is another creative tool.

    Batman shot in 3D correctly should do very well it’s a comic character. The only gimmick with stereoscope is the added “tax” for those glasses.

  • Jon G.

    “Yeah, you can stomp your feet around and get sent to bed without your supper screaming that you are going to boycott movies forever if they go 3D. Go enjoy your VHS.”

    Mr. Rodney, I think you are being borderline condescending here. Have you considered that some people dislike 3D not because it might be used as a gimmick to raise ticket prices (which it often is), or because it adds very little or nothing to the viewing experience and/or enjoyment of the movie (which it often does), but because we literally *cannot watch 3D*?

    I have the misfortune of having acute myopia, and for over a year now I have been unable to wear contact lenses due to some other eye problem. This makes me incapable of wearing 3D glasses. Well, I suppose I could wear them in front of my ordinary glasses, but 1) it would be damnably uncomfortable and 2) I have no wish to risk my glasses, which due to the aforementioned myopia are quite expensive.

    I don’t know how many other people share my situation. Yes, I’ve heard about upcoming technology that will enable people to watch 3D without 3D glasses, but that’s years in the future. And even when that technology becomes commercially viable, it will take even more years before a lot of theaters who just expensively upgraded to “normal” 3D agree to fork out even more money for “glasses-less” 3D.

    From where I sit, it looks like it will be a long time before I can jump on the 3D bandwagon. So when I read about a studio greedily pushing 3D to squeeze more money out of viewers while blatantly disregarding a fantastic director’s opinion and possibly compromising his vision for his movies, and then see my concerns dismissed and tarred the way you did, it only further darkens my already very dismal opinion of 3D and its supporters.

    • http://www.judymoodymovie.com Rodney

      There are also a percentage of people who cannot watch 3D films because they are blind. There are also a number of people who cannot watch horror films because of their sensitive reaction to gore. Doesn’t mean those films need to be condemned becuase a very small group CANNOT enjoy them.

      The statement was not made to mock those unfortunate or with a disability that keeps them from enjoying the undeniable added feature of 3d, the statement was against those whining crybabies who have no valid reason to dissent outside of their own kneejerk reaction to resist change.

      I wonder if they didn’t charge extra for 3D, would anyone care? Most of this anti-3d fuss seems to come from wildly subjective and reasonless hatred towards an advance in technology.

      It is an improvement just like every other improvement made in film. This just happens to be one that costs more.

      Yes, 3d can be abused, but so can CGI and no one is protesting its use.

      • SNOW37

        I would rather watch stop motion 2D Clash of the Titans any day over CGI 3D Clash of the Titans!

←  Older Comments
 →