Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field, and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally." That's bologna.
What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that movie turned out.” They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for years.
The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again, a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason. Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad form. Anyone else annoyed?
<Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field, and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally." That's bologna.
> What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that movie turned out.” They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for years.
> The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again, a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason. Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad form. Anyone else annoyed?
On May 24, 10:03 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 12:01 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field, and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally." That's bologna.
> > What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that movie turned out.” They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for years.
> > The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again, a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason. Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad form. Anyone else annoyed?
> Not a G.I. JOE-boy, but this does suggest that 3D's alleged fad might
> not be on life-support just yet...
Or it might just mean that in a summer season dominated by The
Avengers, Batman and Spider-Man, it's best to run for cover. Run,
run, run until the next calender year.
> On May 24, 10:03 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:> On May 24, 12:01 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> > <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field, and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We’re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office internationally." That's bologna.
> > > What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that movie turned out.” They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for years.
> > > The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again, a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason. Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad form. Anyone else annoyed?
> > Not a G.I. JOE-boy, but this does suggest that 3D's alleged fad might
> > not be on life-support just yet...
> Or it might just mean that in a summer season dominated by The
> Avengers, Batman and Spider-Man, it's best to run for cover. Run,
> run, run until the next calender year.
Still, two of those contenders are already 3-Diddled ...and the only
reason the other declined is that Christopher Nolan was in a
snit ...which JOE's stature couldn't afford. (Are people *really*
clamoring for another G.I. bill?) Besides, I've had a post-conversion
myself, and now feel that the process may actually be quite consonant
with comic-book "drama".
> On May 24, 5:05 pm, nick<nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 10:03 am, moviePig<pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:> On May 24, 12:01 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
>>> <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field, and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We re going to do a conscientious 3D job because we ve seen how it can better box office internationally." That's bologna.
>>>> What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim Cameron did all of Titanic s 3D in post and look how well that movie turned out. They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for years.
>>>> The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again, a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason. Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad form. Anyone else annoyed?
>>> Not a G.I. JOE-boy, but this does suggest that 3D's alleged fad might
>>> not be on life-support just yet...
>> Or it might just mean that in a summer season dominated by The
>> Avengers, Batman and Spider-Man, it's best to run for cover. Run,
>> run, run until the next calender year.
But I want it now!
> Still, two of those contenders are already 3-Diddled ...and the only
> reason the other declined is that Christopher Nolan was in a
> snit ...which JOE's stature couldn't afford. (Are people *really*
> clamoring for another G.I. bill?)
I was looking forward to it based on the trailers. I liked the first one and Bruce Willis hamming it up notwithstanding, this one looked better.
moviePig wrote:
> On May 24, 12:01 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field,
>> and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's
>> themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this
>> summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a
>> big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not
>> to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th
>> this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March
>> 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We’re going to do a
>> conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office
>> internationally." That's bologna.
>> What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to
>> do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D
>> ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as
>> any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest
>> of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem
>> worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim
>> Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that
>> movie turned out.” They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a
>> Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for
>> years.
>> The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such
>> a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again,
>> a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book
>> series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason.
>> Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about
>> G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what
>> they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave
>> and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first
>> film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten
>> months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad
>> form. Anyone else annoyed?
> Not a G.I. JOE-boy, but this does suggest that 3D's alleged fad might
> not be on life-support just yet...
More like they've found out that 3D doesn't really add any value to the movie other than the fact they can get away with charging $4 per ticket more for it. The cost of the conversion is much lower than the projected revenue. I've yet to see a 3D movie that was 'better' because it was 3D other than Avatar.
On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:32:30 PM UTC-4, WrongWayWade wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > On May 24, 12:01 am, "Mr. Hole the Magnificent"
> > <Classic.Mr.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Bad news for G.I. Joe fans out there. In a move out of left field,
> >> and one almost as tyrannical as killing off the G.I. Joe's
> >> themselves, Deadline reports Paramount Pictures is pushing back this
> >> summer's release of G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which has already made a
> >> big marketing push with several trailers and a bunch of posters, not
> >> to mention toys already on the shelves. Instead of hitting June 29th
> >> this year, the studio is moving back the film nine months to March
> >> 29th, 2013 to convert it to 3D. An exec said, "We’re going to do a
> >> conscientious 3D job because we’ve seen how it can better box office
> >> internationally." That's bologna.
> >> What that says to me is Paramount doesn't have faith in the film to
> >> do enough business at the box office without the inflation of 3D
> >> ticket prices. Honestly, I think this is a shitty move all around as
> >> any marketing for the film is now going to wither away for the rest
> >> of the year, fans are going to be pissed, and it just doesn't seem
> >> worth it for a 3D conversion. Apparently an exec also said, "Jim
> >> Cameron did all of Titanic‘s 3D in post – and look how well that
> >> movie turned out.” They don't seem to realize that Titanic was a
> >> Best Picture winner, and the highest grossing film of all-time for
> >> years.
> >> The studio seems to be banking on March as a viable release for such
> >> a big movie after The Hunger Games snagged a bunch of money (again,
> >> a film with quite a following because of the best-selling book
> >> series preceding it), but I don't think that's a good enough reason.
> >> Summer is crowded, but there's plenty of people still excited about
> >> G.I. Joe Retaliation, but I don't think Paramount is happy with what
> >> they have for a summer release (especially sandwiched between Brave
> >> and The Amazing Spider-Man). Honestly, even though I hated the first
> >> film, this sequel looked fun, and now we have to wait another ten
> >> months for it to hit theaters. Bad form, Paramount Pictures, bad
> >> form. Anyone else annoyed?
> > Not a G.I. JOE-boy, but this does suggest that 3D's alleged fad might
> > not be on life-support just yet...
> More like they've found out that 3D doesn't really add any value to the > movie other than the fact they can get away with charging $4 per ticket more > for it. The cost of the conversion is much lower than the projected > revenue. I've yet to see a 3D movie that was 'better' because it was 3D > other than Avatar.
> In article <j6fds757llp9djjc41nt5ckbibhb7co...@4ax.com>,
> Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
> >Once Upon A Time,
> >Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
> >>I've yet to see a 3D movie that was 'better' because it was 3D
> >>> other than Avatar.
> >>Hugo was.
> >The Nightmare Before Christmas. The 3D version made my jaw drop right into
> >my popcorn. It made me wish that real life was 3D just like it.
> >**
> >Captain Infinity
> Interesting as that was post-converted IIRC.
> (I liked it, but never saw the original, so I have no basis for comparison)
Since I now feel that comic-book movies are fair game for (i.e.,
helped by) post-converted 3D, I'd imagine that the animated NIGHTMARE
benefited from it as much as, say, AVENGERS and THOR did. No added
intellectual content, but lots of extra snap for the visuals ...which
I'm not purist enough to resist.
Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <j6fds757llp9djjc41nt5ckbibhb7co...@4ax.com>,
> Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us> wrote:
>> Once Upon A Time,
>> Mr. Hole the Magnificent wrote:
>>> I've yet to see a 3D movie that was 'better' because it was 3D
>>>> other than Avatar.
>>> Hugo was.
>> The Nightmare Before Christmas. The 3D version made my jaw drop
>> right into my popcorn. It made me wish that real life was 3D just
>> like it.
>> **
>> Captain Infinity
> Interesting as that was post-converted IIRC.
> (I liked it, but never saw the original, so I have no basis for
> comparison)
I think with animation is is much 'easier' to get good 3D results with than live action. I did like this movie a lot but missed it when it was re-released in 3D.
For me 3D is a bad fad, but it certainly doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. It may be that my eyes don't really work that way that well.
Anytime you see a regular 2D movie your brain is doing a 3D conversion anyway. Forcing more of this by pumping two different images to each eye doesn't really do much for me, but that may be just me.
