I've Seen Clash of the Titans in 3D, and everything didn't popout, i remember going to the underwater adventures 3d at the imax, and it felt like the jelly fish were really just about to hit you. I Never knew Clash of the titans wasn't filmed using a 3D camera and was just "Converted".

Studios lose part of their audience if they don't readily provide a 2D version, both in theaters and on DVD/BD; they may usually not be too bad about 3D-forcing so far, but if this 3D obsession continues to grow like this, it's not looking good.

"3D" movies just don't work for some people's eyes. Even without the price premium, and even if filmed in "3D" instead of run through some conversion process, I don't want to watch a "3D" movie, because I'm stuck just looking at the ugly colored auras around everything and getting a headache (even worse since I'd have to pay extra for the privilege). I wanted to go see Avatar in theaters, but could never find a showing in 2D.

What's the difference between shooting it and 3D and making it 3D in post? Can anyone honestly tell the difference?

Shot In 3D is Filming a movie with 2 cameras side by side(One for each eye)
3D in post is taking a 2D film and with various computer programes creating
a second(fake) camera for your other eye. Both have good and bad qualitys.

"Avatar" was a combination of both. Whether or not the 3D in a film is Good,
Bad, simple, gimmiky or too Flat. is based on the decisions of those in charge,
And how much effort,time,money and skill the filmers or converters have.

Well the 2D versions will still be shown in the Cinemas so just buy a ticket for those showings instead.
I also see 3D as a gimmick and found it distracting in Avatar.
However given 3D as a CHOICE for those that enjoy it cannot be bad now can it?
That said it should ultimately be the directors choice.

A 3-D Batman would be awesome! Of course this is providing Nolan is comfortable enough to film properly in 3-D. I don't see any reason why he'd be against this...

Some of you are just acting dumb. If you don't like 3-D, then just go watch the 2-D version. I don't see any problems here. You sound like the people who were ragging on sound and technicolour. Hell, I've even heard from people who can't stand IMAX because it's too big and loud and called that a 'fad.' You people won't spend the extra $3 for 3-D saying movies are too expensive, but then happily pitch over an extra $5 for IMAX??? If anything is a rip-off, it's the expense of an extra $10 for D-Box!

Not always. My theatre has no 2D options for 3D films so I'm pretty much forced to see the film in 3D.

After several 3D films, my current plan is thus..

If a movie was SHOT for 3D.... that is how I will see it.

If it was NOT, but converted? - I will see it 2D.

If the directors vision didn't include 3D - then I anticipate most of the effects will be gimmicky, or at the very least do not fall within the directors vision for the film. Thus I'd prefer to see it the way he planned/envisioned it, with the brighter colors, proper 2d cinematography, no glasses, etc etc.

If the directors vision DID include 3D - I'll expect the 3D to work into the vision the same way lighting and set design do. (Wishful thinking?) Granted while directors are getting used to it - there will be some... rough usages.. but I can deal with that.. as long as shots where designed in such a way that directors think 3D can enhance the movie, I'm totally down.

and im gonna hold Marty Scorsese partially responsible for this bullshit. /film ran that article a few weeks ago where he said that all films - including dramatic ones - could/would benefit from 3D.

WHAT IN THE FUCK WAS HE THINKING?!?! can't blame that one on old age, cuz he's still just as adept a filmmaker as ever. its like he came down with a heavy case of being a dumb-fuck.

this is all just so fucking irritating.

I guess this shouldn't be too shocking given that guy who used to own the studio tried to colorize Citizen Kane.

Warner Bros. should realize that Nolan's last film passed over 1 billion dollars and wasn't 3D. It grossed that much because it was GOOD. Avatar made that much money because it was REAL 3D and a GOOD film. Whereas, Alice isn't making nearly as much because it was FAKE 3D and SUCKED BAWLZ. If Nolan says no to 3D, WB, do NOT hire a new director who's willing to shoot in 3D.

A Nolan film would be interesting in 3D, but he prefers shooting on film and especially on large, detailed formats. Christopher Nolan would never shoot digitally unless the quality was even higher than 35 mm.
If they do try to convince him to shoot in 3D, WB will need to somehow provide a 3D camera who's resolution is like 7k and not 2k like Avatar was. I'd prefer they just shoot the entire film in 65mm like he said.
The best thing to do would to shoot in IMAX AND 3D. Shoot with two IMAX cameras next to each other. It would probably be the most expensive movie ever made and with post production and principal photography, it would probably turn into the Apocalypse Now of superhero film productions.

That would not be a problem, because the camera manufactures are already researching/building cameras with a lot more than 2k. If Christopher Nolan wants to shoot in this high resolution formats, it would be possible (maybe with some technical hurdles because of the current beta status of the cameras).

I'm a huge fan of 3D, and I hope it truly is here to stay... however, I love films shot in color and Night of The Living Dead in color made me puke even before the gory zombies showed up. Don't upconvert, Warner Bros!!!!

The 3D in Alice in Wonderland was terrible. I even noticed two occasions where the positive and negative space were reversed!!! Trying to pass this off as legit 3D is some shameful shit.

You don't need 3D technology and effects to experience the depth of a Christopher Nolan film.

end of story.

Please. All you people are so negative.

What's HONESTLY bugging you about 3D? An extra 3 USD? I don't mind it.
Unless it's ShitD like Clash, I'm not as against it as many comments are.

fuck this nonsense. i really hope this blows up in their faces, and i prey for a stetement from nolan where he states: "our script does not call for 3D, so therefore our film will not be mucked up with an unnecessary format change."

no need at all to see gotham city or its in habitants in 3D. the story is all that ever has does & will matter. motherfucking avatar.

a slap in the face to those of us minus 1 eye.

I don't want to see a batman movie in 3D, sounds way too gimmicky and just won't work with Nolan's type of filmmaking.

Horn is somewhat right here, the great thing about media is the audience will decide. Hollywood will stop pushing 3D when 3D movies stop making money, don't like it then don't go see WB releases in 3D. The last time I checked 2D screens out number 3D screens in America by more then a few thousand.

Oh my god... fucking Avatar.

Exactly!

THIS IS HORRIBLE NEWS! Like many have already stated, I don't see why EVERY movie HAS to be in 3D now. If it's the director's vision for it to be in 3D, then so be it. But it SHOULD NOT be a studio mandate. That's complete bullshit. I pray to the movie gods that Nolan has the authority and leeway with WB to say NO to converting Inception and Batman 3 to 3D. I mean, wow...this really, really sucks.

I am actually really upset about this. I DON'T WANT TO SEE BATMAN, INCEPTION OR SUPERMAN IN 3D GODDAMMIT!!!

These are tent pole films, studios like Warner Bros mandate the look and feel of these types of movies all the time. No studio hands any director a few hundred million dollars to make a tent pole film without having a lot of input in the final project. Sometimes this even goes for smaller movies Kevin Smith said that when he was making "Cop Out" the studio had to approve the visuals from the first days of shooting because he was using a cinematographer that's never worked with them before.

Boycott 3D films? I think so. I'm not spending an extra couple of bucks for 3D that's not worth it.

NO!!! This is ridiculous. 3D is terrible if it is converted afterward. I really hope Clash of The Titans flops so the studios will learn. Hopefully the movies I want to see will be shown in 2D also because I will not watch Batman 3 or Inception in craptastic 3D.

Yeah -- I think 3D should be a limited strategy...and I'd say of the 3 to 4 I've seen in theaters since it became the norm only 1 (Avatar) seemed worth my money.

Unless I see more stuff like Coraline, I'm over it.

Yep. And if Nolan says no 3D, they'll fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness.

Yeah, well, all it will take is one (or two) of these 3-D "tentpoles" to crash and burn at the box office to make Warners reconsider. Hopefully it will happen sooner than later.

I don't think Nolan will be very happy about this.

hands down agree with you. no way nolan lets them make him do it in 3D. no way in hell. i'd place a large bet that the third batfilm will not be in 3d at all. untyil i hear nolan say he wants to do it, i'm calling bullshit.

Wow. I should have seen this coming. I will be pissed if they upconvert Inception and infuriated if they make Nolan shoot Batman 3 in 3D against his will. I'm not a 3D hater I thought Avatar looked great and even enjoyed My Bloody Valentine but those movies were shot in 3D damn it. This is nothing more than the modern version of colorization.
I really hope Chris Nolan digs his heels in. I thought what he did with IMAX cameras in the Dark Knight was every bit as impressive as what Cameron did in Avatar but you can't shoot in 3D and use IMAX cameras (at least not yet). Nolan has the clout to fight the studio on this (he might be the only director right now who does) and if they don't let him make his movie the way he wants to he should walk, since in spite of what many believe he has NOT signed on to direct Batman 3 yet.

WB needs Nolan a lot more than he needs them, every other studio in Hollywood would roll out the red carpet for him if he walked out on them.

If Batman is in 3D it's because Nolan wants it to be.

Is anyone else seeing the extreme similarity between Warner Bros' adoption of 3D to their adoption and promoting of sound in movies? It's crazy similar. Filmmakers and studios were apprehensive about it until Warner Bros. championed Vitaphone and started raking in the dough, then the other studios started getting in on the action. Interesting. Could 3D be here to stay? (not a fad) Only time will tell.

Oh I forgot to mention that the first movie released to a wide audience with sound, was Warner Bros' movie "Don Juan" which was shot originally as a silent film, then had an accompanying soundtrack and sound effects added in post production, after Warner Bros. decided to champion the advent of sound. Sound at all like Clash of the Titans being converted to 3D hmmm?

As long as 3-D films continue to be 4 dollars more than the normal 2-D showings, I will never go see these films. Movies are already expensive enough, and yet these studios want many of their movies to be even more pricey in ticket prices. I guarantee you 3-D films will decline over time because families will not be able to afford it.

I'd like to see them try and force Christopher Nolan to make his next Batman film in 3D...

This is a bad, but expected move by Warners. As mentioned above, it should be the director's decision whether or not to go 3D - and it should be shot in 3D. This post-conversion method is just a cash grab.

What wouldn't I give to see Bale tell WB "You and I are fucking done professionally." Seriously, I almost hate 3D because of this now.

2D ftw! Lol. But really, some movies need 3D, some don't. I just wish they'd do BioShock in 3D.

Yeah, not so sure Nolan is interested in 3D, has he ever talked about it? I don't think 3D will enhance the 3rd Batman dramatically.The IMAX scenes in TDK were much more impressive than any 3D I've seen, here's hoping Nolan sticks to his plan of shooting the entire movie with Imax cameras!

He has talked about 3D.

From an interview with Collider:

"Christopher Nolan: Well, I've never been particularly interested in 3D filmmaking, mainly because you have to wear those goofy glasses, but actually, on a serious note, there are a lot of disadvantages with 3D because of the polarization of the lenses and the glasses, there's very little light that actually comes to the eyes. It's a very dim image, compared with 2D presentations. The grand scale of the cinema screen, the IMAX screen particularly, when viewed in 3D, becomes much more intimate. It shrinks it, effectively, and I think that my interest in cinema, to this point at least, has been in creating something that is larger than life and that speaks of a certain grandeur. 3D is a very intimate thing, and so it's not so much an audience experience as an individual experience. So, it has it's own requirements and demands, and as it develops as a technology I think it'll become more and more interesting, but I think at the moment we haven't yet pushed anywhere near as far as we should or could in terms of creating immersive 2D cinematic experiences."

This was in 2008, so his opinion might have changed since, but I doubt it.

An entire Batman in IMAX would be killer. Hopefully it'll come out after this 3D fad fades away... it's just a fad, right? RIGHT?

I have no problem with this so long as you FILM these movies in 3D. Stop with the converting garbage and starting filming them in 3D. Avatar set the bar pretty high when it comes to a quality 3D experience, and if you start releasing too many films with sub-standard 3D quality, you are going to kill it before it even begins.

Why do studios want to ruin 3D before it even gets started. I guarantee that everyone will be burnt out on this bullshit before the year is up. This is a very bad idea, like Fox bad, in fact this sounds more like a Fox move than a Warner one.

Mr. Horn, you might as well just came out and said, "Yea, we want to trick as many people into paying $3 more per ticket as we can."
Fuck you, now I don't want to see any of Warner's movies in 3D. I wonder what Nolan thinks about this and if they'll let them fuck with Inception.

Wouldn't they film it in 2D so it can be released on DVD in 2D?

You just take one of the two 3D feeds for your 2D. 3D really does both at the same time.

Oh god... is Tom Rothman running WB now too?

Have to agree with Peter (and probably everyone else), if you're going to make a 3-D movie, it should be filmed, or animated, in 3-D. Otherwise, forget it.

Yeah, this conversion crap makes it even more of a gimmick than it already is.

AAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH! STOP BEING STUPID WARNER BROS!