PDA

View Full Version : Clash of the Titans - Oh dear!



Neil
31-Mar-2010, 04:08 PM
AICN hates it, mainly for its terrible post production 3D:-

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44470

SymphonicX
31-Mar-2010, 04:24 PM
Hmm seems like they raped the already sexed up story!! I love the original cos it scared me shitless when I was young...the scene with medusa is simply astounding.

I won't see this rehash...they have obviously messed with it too much and even the eye-candy element to it seems pointless. I'll wait for the 2D version.

Also this review doesn't bode well for the 3D Dawn of the Dead that may come out eventually!!!!

bassman
31-Mar-2010, 04:30 PM
It's been predicted from the start of Titan's 3D process that it was going to be bad. A rushed job just to try and capitalize off of Avatar's (REAL) 3D success. Just like Alice in Wonderland, it's crappy layered and blurry "3D". Not the real deal.

Titans is still available in regular 2D - I suggest you see it there.

Neil
31-Mar-2010, 04:37 PM
Also this review doesn't bode well for the 3D Dawn of the Dead that may come out eventually!!!!

No it doesn't, but it does sound like they rushed it... So maybe with more time and effort it can give a better result?

I mean even Cameron is going down this route with Titanic, so it can't be a total loss!?

Danny
31-Mar-2010, 04:40 PM
the retarded buttrock/thrash metal trailer could'a told you this.

MikePizzoff
31-Mar-2010, 05:11 PM
the retarded buttrock/thrash metal trailer could'a told you this.

The music in the trailer I saw was the farthest thing from thrash, metal or even "buttrock". It was shitty mainstream "heavy" music.

bassman
31-Mar-2010, 05:13 PM
I read somewhere(looking for link) that they started the 3d process on Titans only 2-3 months ago. That says alot, right there. Rushed job just for the extra moola.

With Dawn they've been spending a long time, so I think the end result will be much better.

As for Titans in regular ol 2D - I'm still looking forward to it for a good mindless time.

EvilNed
31-Mar-2010, 05:14 PM
I personally think that "retroactive 3D" is a total crash and burn.

darth los
31-Mar-2010, 05:25 PM
I personally think that "retroactive 3D" is a total crash and burn.


They're just going to have to bite the bullet and do it right from the beginning. They're probably hoping the sheeple won't notice orc care.

:cool:

Neil
01-Apr-2010, 08:32 AM
Another "oh dear" from AICN - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44475

SymphonicX
01-Apr-2010, 09:25 AM
This film sounds really bad.

Can't they remake something and actually ENRICH it rather than being woefully embarassed at how good the original was?

MinionZombie
01-Apr-2010, 11:40 AM
This film sounds really bad.

Can't they remake something and actually ENRICH it rather than being woefully embarassed at how good the original was?
That's the real problem. Taking successful and well known flicks with brands that are easy to market and making something worse, when they should actually be taking shit movies (like, as I always use in this line of discussion, Drive-In Massacre) and making something better out of them.

The first time I saw the trailer for Clash 2010 with that silly rock music over the top I thought "oh dear", and having seen the trailer a billion times in the cinema when waiting for the fucking movie I'm there to see actually start, I just want to see it less and less and less.

The rush-job on the 3D also doesn't leave a good impression. Money-grubbing, alright. :rockbrow:

Legion2213
01-Apr-2010, 11:45 AM
Well I'm still looking forward to it...big budget sword and sandals type of gig, I'm a sucker for that sort of stuff. :p

Edit: Don't give a toss about gimmicky 3D, that can smoke my pole, but I will grab this on "normal" BD when it comes out.

bassman
01-Apr-2010, 01:21 PM
That's the real problem. Taking successful and well known flicks with brands that are easy to market and making something worse, when they should actually be taking shit movies (like, as I always use in this line of discussion, Drive-In Massacre) and making something better out of them.


Which one of these categories would you put Titan into? I may be in the minority here, but I think Titans is one of the latter. It needed a remake.



Besides.....Liam Neeson, bitches.:elol:

SymphonicX
01-Apr-2010, 01:23 PM
the original had flaws but over its 29 years of life we've come to love them through childhood memories and whatnot...they just can't touch that with a remake - so their duty is to improve it, flesh it out, highlight the areas for improvement and progress it...

not turn it into a bunch of emo kids screaming about how they hate their dad!

Tricky
03-Apr-2010, 01:03 PM
I went to see it last night, it wont win any awards but its not that bad if you disengage brain & just watch it for what it is. The 3D, as reported, isnt up to scratch though, in some places it looks ok & in others pretty bad, nowhere near as awesome as it looks in Avatar. Sometimes things seem closer than they should, like the hair on characters looks closer than their face, when it should be further back, or people look layered, almost like a cardboard cut out thats been stuck in front of the screen, while the background looks fuzzy & out of focus. But then during scenes like when the Kraken attacks Argos, it looks pretty good, bit of a mismatch!
I like Sam Worthington as an actor though, he was good in Avatar, decent in Terminator salvation (even though the film sucks sweaty bollocks) & he's good in this as Percius, I think he's got a decent future ahead of him

Will.E.B.Dead
03-Apr-2010, 11:18 PM
I've seen worse and will give it a try. :D

fulci fan
03-Apr-2010, 11:48 PM
If they didn't depend on shitty looking CG and used practical effects, maybe it would have been decent. Everything in that could have been done practically.

Tricky
05-Apr-2010, 11:43 PM
Yeah I agree practical effects would have been better, I always found Ray Harryhausens stop motion monsters to be far more creepy than anything CG, I think it was the way they moved that did it!

fulci fan
06-Apr-2010, 02:59 AM
Yeah I agree practical effects would have been better, I always found Ray Harryhausens stop motion monsters to be far more creepy than anything CG, I think it was the way they moved that did it!

I have never been a fan of Stop Motion. It has never looked real to me even when I was little. I think that is why it isn't used today but anything beats CG characters and creatures. The only time CG is good in film is when it is used to enhance practical effects. For instance, hiding blood tubes or green screening puppeteers.