If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Director)   Taking a cue from Christopher Nolan's approach to "Inception" and "The Dark Knight Rises," Guillermo Del Toro reveals that he doesn't want to shoot his "Frankenstein" movie in 3D   (digitalspy.com) divider line 51
    More: Cool, Frankenstein, Guillermo del Toro, Inception  
•       •       •

1214 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 02 Nov 2010 at 6:10 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-02 03:25:33 PM
img26.imageshack.us

I think this is a good headline and I like the way the source is changed from 'Digital Spy' to 'some director'

+1
 
2010-11-02 03:34:59 PM
3d is a gimmick, awesome for animated films and movies like jack ass, not for any movie that wants to be respected.
 
2010-11-02 03:48:45 PM
manimal2878: 3d is a gimmick, awesome for animated films and movies like jack ass, not for any movie that wants to be respected.

Amen to that. Movies need better writing and acting for the most part, not so much more eye candy and special effects.

That's why the newest Casino Royal was so good. They minimized the special effects (as much as would really be acceptable for a James Bond movie, I suppose), got rid of the goofy gadgets, had a reasonable plot, and perhaps most importantly, Eva Green is an amazing actress, while still being rather easy on the eyes. And Daniel Craig is just good.

If a movie is good, it will be good without 3D. If it requires 3D, then it isn't really a good movie, it's more like a demo of CGI techniques.
 
2010-11-02 04:11:19 PM
Sid_6.7: got rid of the goofy gadgets,

And that is one of, if not THE, biggest reasons I dislike the Bond reboot so much. Growing up I watched all the Bond movies ten million times, and one of the best parts was always the goofy gadgets. Sure they're for the most part completely unrealistic, but that's still part of the Bond universe, and one of the trademark pieces of the franchise. The new films, at least to me, are now just "generic action movie". Ho hum in my belief, nothing special or lasting.
 
2010-11-02 04:15:24 PM
Sid_6.7: Eva Green is an amazing actress, while still being rather easy on the eyes.

RATHER easy? Obviously you've never seen "The Dreamers."
 
2010-11-02 05:03:03 PM
Shostie: Sid_6.7: Eva Green is an amazing actress, while still being rather easy on the eyes.

RATHER easy? Obviously you've never seen "The Dreamers."


That, and since when did she start acting?
She's just eye candy.
 
2010-11-02 05:03:56 PM
I'm glad that the backlash has begun. I hate that my only options for certain movies are:

1) Don't see it
2) Leave with a skull-busting headache
 
2010-11-02 05:05:43 PM
Shostie: Sid_6.7: Eva Green is an amazing actress, while still being rather easy on the eyes.

RATHER easy? Obviously you've never seen "The Dreamers."


Also, thanks for bringing up "The Dreamers". Since Boardwalk Empire started airing, it was killing me which role I had seen Michael Pitt in where he had a lead. Right after I posted that last comment it struck me.

I can now sleep at night thanks to you.
 
2010-11-02 05:13:28 PM
Awesome. I think it's hilarious how much movie studios and electronics manufacturers are trying to push this 3D crap and directors everywhere are just going "no".
 
2010-11-02 05:14:14 PM
manimal2878: 3d is a gimmick, awesome for animated films and movies like jack ass, not for any movie that wants to be respected.

Exactly. I saw Superman in 3D. I think 3D now is much "better" (only certain scenes were in 3D, it was stupid). However, during the previews of said movie, they showed a 3D trailer for (I think) Happy Feet... which is animated.

Looked awesome, and I'd have actually seen it just to see it in 3D.

Animation- especially the more cartoony movies- are total fantasy. 3D works fine there. But a live action movie... the 3D just sucks. Its not even 3D, its still flat. You can't see around objects, you just see flat objects moving left and right.
 
2010-11-02 05:20:06 PM
MaxxLarge: I'm glad that the backlash has begun. I hate that my only options for certain movies are:

1) Don't see it
2) Leave with a skull-busting headache


As am I, for the same reasons. I have opted to simply not see things, since I can't think of any movie that is worth getting a migraine for.

I wonder how much money is lost to people who refuse to go see 3d movies, and if the inflated 3D ticket prices make up for it.
 
2010-11-02 05:28:36 PM
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Awesome. I think it's hilarious how much movie studios and electronics manufacturers are trying to push this 3D crap and directors everywhere are just going "no".

"Hey, everypplz! We know you just dropped a cool K on that HDTV not even two years ago, but THIS is what's REALLY gonna revolutionize home entertainment! We're TOTALLY SERIOUS this time! You even get to sit directly in front of it with these spiffy, headache-inducing horn-rims on! So, can we have some more of your money, now? Whaddaya mean, 'No'? Hey, wait! Where are you going...? Come back!"
 
2010-11-02 05:33:24 PM
rcain: Shostie: Sid_6.7: Eva Green is an amazing actress, while still being rather easy on the eyes.

RATHER easy? Obviously you've never seen "The Dreamers."

That, and since when did she start acting?
She's just eye candy.


A. It's called understatement. You see, not everything that someone writes or says is meant to be taken at literal face value.

B. She's a good actress. Try looking at her face and not just her tits. Also, comprehend that she's French and doing a damn good English accent the entire movie.

And yes, I've seen part of The Dreamers, but I mostly despise that style of cinema.
 
2010-11-02 06:22:30 PM
Sid_6.7: A. It's called understatement. You see, not everything that someone writes or says is meant to be taken at literal face value.

Well excuse me for agreeing wtih someone else's sentiment.

Sid_6.7: B. She's a good actress. Try looking at her face and not just her tits. Also, comprehend that she's French and doing a damn good English accent the entire movie.

No, she's eye candy. Taking voice lessons and actually putting on a good dramatic performance are two very different thing. In fact, some very fine actors have nearly killed otherwise good films because their accents were so god awful, or didn't even try. So no, I'm not buying your "she put on the accent she was taught" as a rating of her thespian skills. Name one role that she performed that could not have been performed as well or better by any other good looking actress. Also, look at the roles she gets. It's all about having her around as the romantic interest or a nice looking piece of ass. I think that really speaks to her skill.

The actress I'm currently grooving on right now is Kelly Macdonald, her performance in No Country for Old Men left a lasting impression, especially for portraying such a relatively minor character. Ohh... and she put on a good American hick accent for that. Been watching her in Boardwalk Empire and while not as impressive a performance (IMO), she owns that role.
 
2010-11-02 06:23:44 PM
Studio: That's fine, Guillermo, ol' chum. You don't have to shoot in 3-D. We'll just have it converted for you with our "3-D Betterizer 5000".
 
2010-11-02 06:28:39 PM
MaxxLarge: I'm glad that the backlash has begun. I hate that my only options for certain movies are:

1) Don't see it
2) Leave with a skull-busting headache


I don't get the headache, I just don't see the 3D. I went to see Avatar with friends and aside from the scene with floating seed things nothing looked 3D to me and that scene was only kinda sorta. Those hologram posters that you are supposed to stare at 'til something pops out never work for me either. So, I'll just be glad when this shiat ends because it will save me money when I go to the theatre.
 
2010-11-02 06:30:21 PM
It seems 3-D will eventually cause a more defined generational split/different markets; with young people wanting all their movies in 3-D and the older crowd will want their movies flat, without any extra fancy-shmancy dimensions.
 
2010-11-02 06:34:16 PM
Burninate: Sid_6.7: got rid of the goofy gadgets,

And that is one of, if not THE, biggest reasons I dislike the Bond reboot so much. Growing up I watched all the Bond movies ten million times, and one of the best parts was always the goofy gadgets. Sure they're for the most part completely unrealistic, but that's still part of the Bond universe, and one of the trademark pieces of the franchise. The new films, at least to me, are now just "generic action movie". Ho hum in my belief, nothing special or lasting.


After "Die Another Day" the gadgets had to go. Same trajectory the bond series took after Roger Moore made the series a complete "lame one liner" and "idiotic gadgets" fest.
 
2010-11-02 06:34:40 PM
rcain: Name one role that she performed that could not have been performed as well or better by any other good looking actress.

Compare her to pretty much any other Bond girl. They were all crap.
 
2010-11-02 06:42:21 PM
Thank GOD! The backlash begins at last. I just hope that those top dollar 3D tvs stick around long enough for me to pick up a 1080p LED for rock bottom.
 
2010-11-02 06:47:30 PM
Taking a cue from Christopher Nolan's approach...

Considering Guillermo Del Toro is the guy who had the balls to tell Peter Jackson to take The Hobbit and fark himself with it cos he refused to do it in 3D, I'd say he's not taking any cues from Christopher Nolan.
 
2010-11-02 06:48:55 PM
meh...

cinefantastiqueonline.com
 
2010-11-02 06:49:12 PM
Do we really need another stupid Frankenstein rehash? Where the fark is my "At The Mountains of Madness" movie!?!
 
2010-11-02 06:51:59 PM
3D is a fad that will not last. The problem is that it is a band-aid for horrible movies.

Actually, had it not been for Avatar being 3D and a hit (Which I think was actually helped by decent 3D and the inflated prices) we would not have had this fad again.

(Dark Knight In Imax is actually pretty cool, I just wish the whole movie was shot that way...)
 
2010-11-02 07:06:02 PM
How many projects is he connected to? Sheesh.
 
2010-11-02 07:09:07 PM
Courtney Cox-Zucker: Taking a cue from Christopher Nolan's approach...

Considering Guillermo Del Toro is the guy who had the balls to tell Peter Jackson to take The Hobbit and fark himself with it cos he refused to do it in 3D, I'd say he's not taking any cues from Christopher Nolan.


From what I understand, Guillermo del Toro left the Hobbit because it was taking forever and a day to get greenlit, and there was no end to the foot dragging by MGM in sight. Also, Guillermo del Toro gave significant creative direction during his time in the pre-production process and would have had considerale say in how the movie was to be filmed. Till now I had not heard even a peep about such severe creative differences as the cause leading to his departure

Not saying you are wrong, but please post a link.
 
2010-11-02 07:14:14 PM
f(x,y,z,t)...four parameters/dimensions

/das
 
2010-11-02 07:31:15 PM
but will frankenstein have eyes on his hands?
 
2010-11-02 07:32:54 PM
vrax: Studio: That's fine, Guillermo, ol' chum. You don't have to shoot in 3-D. We'll just have it converted for you with our "3-D Betterizer 5000".

THIS is what I'd be worried about... but a backlash *is* encouraging.

I think the 3D fad got a mite out of hand.
 
2010-11-02 07:36:48 PM
Oobleck: but will frankenstein have eyes on his hands?

You know, that is a true testament to how iconic his "Pale Man" creation from Pan's Labyrinth is.
Seems most every thread concerning del Toro has some remark about characters having eyes on their hands. Fact is, only that one character had that peculiarity, but it resonates.
 
2010-11-02 07:44:37 PM
fusillade762: Do we really need another stupid Frankenstein rehash? Where the fark is my "At The Mountains of Madness" movie!?!

Came to say this. He's going to pull a Robert Jordan at this rate.
 
2010-11-02 07:54:58 PM
rcain: You know, that is a true testament to how iconic his "Pale Man" creation from Pan's Labyrinth is.
Seems most every thread concerning del Toro has some remark about characters having eyes on their hands. Fact is, only that one character had that peculiarity, but it resonates.


Wasn't there a thing in Hellboy II that had eye-hands?
 
2010-11-02 07:57:25 PM
Torqueknot: MaxxLarge: I'm glad that the backlash has begun. I hate that my only options for certain movies are:

1) Don't see it
2) Leave with a skull-busting headache

I don't get the headache, I just don't see the 3D. I went to see Avatar with friends and aside from the scene with floating seed things nothing looked 3D to me and that scene was only kinda sorta. Those hologram posters that you are supposed to stare at 'til something pops out never work for me either. So, I'll just be glad when this shiat ends because it will save me money when I go to the theatre.


Same here, except I got bits and flashes of 3D throughout the film. Of course, since that was the first time I've seen 3D ever, it'd have been worth it even with the headache.

/Suffice it to say my eyes are fine, but the brain is f'd up.
 
2010-11-02 08:02:50 PM
Burninate: Sid_6.7: got rid of the goofy gadgets,

And that is one of, if not THE, biggest reasons I dislike the Bond reboot so much. Growing up I watched all the Bond movies ten million times, and one of the best parts was always the goofy gadgets. Sure they're for the most part completely unrealistic, but that's still part of the Bond universe, and one of the trademark pieces of the franchise. The new films, at least to me, are now just "generic action movie". Ho hum in my belief, nothing special or lasting.


I have to agree. The gadgets and overall "campiness" for lack of a better term are what really made me enjoy so many of the Bond films.
 
2010-11-02 08:48:36 PM
Flapjack727: rcain: You know, that is a true testament to how iconic his "Pale Man" creation from Pan's Labyrinth is.
Seems most every thread concerning del Toro has some remark about characters having eyes on their hands. Fact is, only that one character had that peculiarity, but it resonates.

Wasn't there a thing in Hellboy II that had eye-hands?


Not that I recall, there is one with a boney sconce for a forehead and wings laden with eyes
www.nerdburner.com
 
2010-11-02 10:04:13 PM
fusillade762: Where the fark is my "At The Mountains of Madness" movie!?!

An excellent question.

/Still, props to Del Toro for not hopping onto the 3D bandwagon
 
2010-11-02 11:37:59 PM
just what the world needs
yet another rendition of Frankenstein
while AtMoM gets pushed back yet another year
 
2010-11-02 11:51:00 PM
I think 3D is hilarious because films have been shot in all three dimensions ever since the early 1900s. It's called depth of field.
 
2010-11-03 12:19:45 AM
Again, 3D is retarded because it's not true 3D.

Colorized films were the same way.
Films they attempt to put on dvd (really old films) or blu-ray (modern films) that weren't filmed in that format and look like crap.

There's other examples I can't think of at the moment.

Either film it in 3D or don't. Stop it with the post-conversion shiat.
 
2010-11-03 12:25:34 AM
farm1.static.flickr.com

"Could be worse..."
 
2010-11-03 12:51:18 AM
That's Fronkenschteen.
 
2010-11-03 04:08:53 AM
jake3988: Again, 3D is retarded because it's not true 3D.

Colorized films were the same way.
Films they attempt to put on dvd (really old films) or blu-ray (modern films) that weren't filmed in that format and look like crap.

There's other examples I can't think of at the moment.

Either film it in 3D or don't. Stop it with the post-conversion shiat.


Well, as long as Mill Creek keeps pumpin' 'em out, I'll keep buyin' 'em.
 
2010-11-03 07:25:11 AM
jake3988: Films they attempt to put on dvd (really old films) or blu-ray (modern films) that weren't filmed in that format and look like crap.

I think that one of the main problems is that the effects, makeup, sets, etc. were all intended for a much lower resolution. I bought The Princess Bride on BR (for rather cheap) and it looks really weird, with all the cloth jewelery and such.
 
2010-11-03 10:15:52 AM
Guillermo del Toro is oddly sexy.
 
2010-11-03 11:39:10 AM
rcain: Flapjack727: rcain: You know, that is a true testament to how iconic his "Pale Man" creation from Pan's Labyrinth is.
Seems most every thread concerning del Toro has some remark about characters having eyes on their hands. Fact is, only that one character had that peculiarity, but it resonates.

Wasn't there a thing in Hellboy II that had eye-hands?

Not that I recall, there is one with a boney sconce for a forehead and wings laden with eyes


That's what I was thinking of, thanks
 
2010-11-03 12:15:40 PM
Does this mean the Nolanites will credit Nolan for every film that doesn't come out in 3D from now on? God this is going to get old fast.
 
2010-11-03 12:40:00 PM
AmazinTim: Does this mean the Nolanites will credit Nolan for every film that doesn't come out in 3D from now on? God this is going to get old fast.

Well, he gave them the idea.
Put it in their head so to speak...
 
2010-11-03 12:54:34 PM
Sid_6.7: I bought The Princess Bride on BR (for rather cheap) and it looks really weird, with all the cloth jewelery and such

Um, I think that's called "embroidery."
 
2010-11-03 02:40:05 PM
Hopefully he'll have the Edgar Winter doing the soundtrack.
 
2010-11-03 05:43:00 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Del Toro is overrated? Pan's Labyrinth was okay but not great - never had the desire to see it a second time - and I mostly associate him with pretty lukewarm films with poor direction and dialogue - Blade II, Hellboy I and II, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report