David Twohy explains why he chose not to do Riddick in 3D

[reaper_234]

This is what the creator of The Chronicles Of Riddick series said.

I’ve been working over at IMAX in Santa Monica the last few weeks, overseeing the conversion of RIDDICK into its giant-ass supersize-me format. Hasn’t always been an easy task: David Eggby and I shot the movie widescreen (2.40:1), yet the native aspect ratio of IMAX is much taller (1.90:1). That’s no small difference to reconcile.

My solution was to adopt different aspect ratios within the same movie – something that was never done 10 years ago when film was still king. But now that we use an entirely digital pipeline, we can vary the size of the image on the screen – on a shot-by-shot basis. So that’s what I opted to do for the IMAX version. (RIDDICK will have about 300 IMAX screens.)

And don’t confuse IMAX with 3D as some do. They’re distinct things, and a movie can be one…can be the other…can be both. So RIDDICK will be big – but not extra-dimensional. I think straight IMAX yields a superior viewing experience and is here for good. But 3D? Not sure it’s so much more immersive than a screen 70 feet high. That said…

The good folks at IMAX did run IRON MAN 3 for me in both large format and 3D. And let me tell you, it was quite a spectacle. So I’ll keep my mind open for awhile longer on the ultimate utility and fate of 3D.

He explained this from his website right herehttp://davidtwohy.wordpress.com/2013...be-biiiiiiiig/

[EricJ]

But, as they say on the box-office thread over on the Movies board:
" *cricket* *cricket* "

(Somehow, the idea of Twohy and Riddick making a "bold" industry statement comes off as more of their increasingly left-behind self-delusions:
Admit it, Dave, you just couldn't afford it, right? )

[reaper_234]

As a really huge fan of this series I'm still excited about this, as it's been the one movie I've been anticipating all year. But I have to say at the same time I'm still disappointed that this won't be available in 3D only in the format of IMAX, there's a lot of monster shots I think would've looked awesome in it.

At the same time I actually think it would have helped this movie more, being that I'm getting a feeling that this movie may flop going from what I read and how this movie seems to be tracking. And with the fact that Vin Diesel had to leverage his home just to get this made and used most of his own money, at the risk of almost becoming homeless. I think he has a lot to lose if this movie bombs.

[joenostalgia23]

Reading about the production it also sounds like they probably couldn't afford to do it in 3D. It may have been too risky since the last movie flopped and it took many years to get this new one made.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

Reading about the production it also sounds like they probably couldn't afford to do it in 3D. It may have been too risky since the last movie flopped and it took many years to get this new one made.

Exactly what I'm saying, And I can believe this as well. From what I've read from a couple people on IMDB board for this movie, this movie will only be available in the digital IMAX theaters and none of the real 70mm IMAX theaters.

[Insomniac01]

Really? Iron Man 3 is what made him think 3d may be worthwhile looking into? I imagine his head would explode if he saw something like Hugo.

I mean Iron Man 3 wasn't bad per se, but it wasn't exactly the shinning example of what 3d is capable of adding to a film.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

Really? Iron Man 3 is what made him think consider 3d may be worthwhile looking into? I imagine his head would explode if he saw something like Hugo.

I mean Iron Man 3 wasn't bad per se, but it wasn't exactly the shinning example of what 3d is capable of adding to a film.

I haven't seen Iron Man 3 in 3D but after seeing how awful that movie was in 2D, I really have no desire to. And yea Iron Man 3 really shouldn't be seen as a good example for anything filmmaking, But I agree with Hugo that movie is great and definitely one of the best examples of what 3D should be.

After watching Riddick a few days ago tho, I don't think it being in 3D would've made up for how disappointing and boring that movie was. The movie was slow with hardly any action in it and the action it did have was lame, the special effects were pretty crappy looking also. Especially those lame looking monsters that looked just like the ones in Pitch black, it was pretty much a carbon copy of Pitch Black without all the thrills and tension that movie had.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Movies that are blown up and extract part of the image to fill the entire IMAX screen aren't that great. They are always a little too soft in the image quality. Then again this is a Red camera movie shot in 5k I presume... maybe it won't be that bad.

Nah, Arri Alexa. 2.8K source, and 2K master.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411250/...ef_=tt_dt_spec

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Movies that are blown up and extract part of the image to fill the entire IMAX screen aren't that great. They are always a little too soft in the image quality. Then again this is a Red camera movie shot in 5k I presume... maybe it won't be that bad.

I just tried looking it up to see how he shot this movie, doesn't say. But I do know that David Twohy said in an interview weeks ago that he shot this movie digitally.

[Nighteyes]

Vin Diesel in 3D? Now there's a shocking thought. He's a big enough nuisance as it is, thank you very much.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

Vin Diesel in 3D? Now there's a shocking thought. He's a big enough nuisance as it is, thank you very much.

I know it is gonna happen soon tho since Vin Diesel and Director Rob Choen are teaming up again, to do XXX 3: The Return Of Xander Cage which they said will be filmed in 3D.

[Nighteyes]

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by reaper_234

I haven't seen Iron Man 3 in 3D but after seeing how awful that movie was in 2D, I really have no desire to. And yea Iron Man 3 really shouldn't be seen as a good example for anything filmmaking, But I agree with Hugo that movie is great and definitely one of the best examples of what 3D should be.

After watching Riddick a few days ago tho, I don't think it being in 3D would've made up for how disappointing and boring that movie was. The movie was slow with hardly any action in it and the action it did have was lame, the special effects were pretty crappy looking also. Especially those lame looking monsters that looked just like the ones in Pitch black, it was pretty much a carbon copy of Pitch Black without all the thrills and tension that movie had.

I think Iron Man 3 is a great example of how to not do a twist. Yes it is clever

[Show spoiler]but if your going to replace the villain and turn what was a menacing and threatening character into a punch line then the villain you fall back onto has to be even more of a threat, not less. Also why did the Iron Man suits get shredded apart like they where tin foil yet where able to withstand a fight in Avengers with a demigod? How does the theme of the film of Tony "bieng Iron Man" and no one else make sense when we see that Jarvis is more then capable of piloting dozens of his suits at once making Tony unneeded baggage. Also what kind of damage can this fire people do and what are there abilities, it really seems that it was "whatever the director felt would be cool for the scene" and fells as if he was simply making it up as he went along.

In any case my point was the 3d. My point was Iron man 3 is a good conversion and one that adds to the film. But it never utilizes 3d in a truly stunning way the likes of Hugo, Caroline, Avatar or even Avengers, Titanic and Jurassic Park have.

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

I think Iron Man 3 is a great example of how to not do a twist. Yes it is clever

[Show spoiler]but if your going to replace the villain and turn what was a menacing and threatening character into a punch line then the villain you fall back onto has to be even more of a threat, not less. Also why did the Iron Man suits get shredded apart like they where tin foil yet where able to withstand a fight in Avengers with a demigod? How does the theme of the film of Tony "bieng Iron Man" and no one else make sense when we see that Jarvis is more then capable of piloting dozens of his suits at once making Tony unneeded baggage. Also what kind of damage can this fire people do and what are there abilities, it really seems that it was "whatever the director felt would be cool for the scene" and fells as if he was simply making it up as he went along.

In any case my point was the 3d. My point was Iron man 3 is a good conversion and one that adds to the film. But it never utilizes 3d in a truly stunning way the likes of Hugo, Caroline, Avatar or even Avengers, Titanic and Jurassic Park have.

The theme of the the 3rd film is

[Show spoiler]Tony Stark empowering those around him while coming to terms with what makes him a hero regardless of the suit, which completes his character's arc from the first film where he declared himself the world's most powerful narcissist. The remote suits are clear extensions of the 3rd act drone bots from the 2nd film.

Sorry, couldn't resist as I spend no time in the IM3 thread.

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

The theme of the the 3rd film is

[Show spoiler]Tony Stark empowering those around him while coming to terms with what makes him a hero regardless of the suit, which completes his character's arc from the first film where he declared himself the world's most powerful narcissist. The remote suits are clear extensions of the 3rd act drone bots from the 2nd film.

Sorry, couldn't resist as I spend no time in the IM3 thread.

I understand that and in concept it is okay (I wouldn't say great though), in execution though it is a complete mess.


Is it just me or are others disappointed that some film makers aren't even bothering to see what 3d can and can't do for a film and are relying on imax to show them footage?

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

I think Iron Man 3 is a great example of how to not do a twist. Yes it is clever

[Show spoiler]but if your going to replace the villain and turn what was a menacing and threatening character into a punch line then the villain you fall back onto has to be even more of a threat, not less. Also why did the Iron Man suits get shredded apart like they where tin foil yet where able to withstand a fight in Avengers with a demigod? How does the theme of the film of Tony "bieng Iron Man" and no one else make sense when we see that Jarvis is more then capable of piloting dozens of his suits at once making Tony unneeded baggage. Also what kind of damage can this fire people do and what are there abilities, it really seems that it was "whatever the director felt would be cool for the scene" and fells as if he was simply making it up as he went along.

In any case my point was the 3d. My point was Iron man 3 is a good conversion and one that adds to the film. But it never utilizes 3d in a truly stunning way the likes of Hugo, Caroline, Avatar or even Avengers, Titanic and Jurassic Park have.

Hugo & Avatar are great also, I definitely agree with Coraline also I haven't gotten the true Blu-Ray 3D version yet. But I do remember watching the anaglyph 3D version when i had it on DVD and it looked amazing, haven't seen Titanic in 3D yet but own it. Also Dial M For Murder is another great example of 3D that's utilized to it's full potential.

[reaper_234]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

I understand that and in concept it is okay (I wouldn't say great though), in execution though it is a complete mess.


Is it just me or are others disappointed that some film makers aren't even bothering to see what 3d can and can't do for a film and are relying on imax to show them footage?

It's really been pissing me off for the longest also, that it seems like filmmakers and general moviegoers are choosing to be ignorant on the format of 3D. Not even trying to look up and read everything they can and try to educate themselves on this format, they seem content with choosing to stay on the typical hate 3D bandwagon assuming just cause a few games they played in it or movies they've seen in 3D were terrible that all 3D as a whole is. And that a movie is only cool and worth seeing if it's available in IMAX.