The Final Destination Director Takes on Shark Night 3D

Published 4 years ago by

Shark Night 3D The Final Destination Director Takes on Shark Night 3D

Yesterday afternoon, Deadline chomped into some interesting news (wink, wink). According to their report, director David R. Ellis (The Final Destination) has reached an agreement to return to the world of 3D for his next project, the hilariously named Shark Night 3D.

The film is being made by Incentive Filmed Entertainment for a cool $28 million and is being produced by Mike Fleiss, Chris Briggs and Lynette Howell. Fleiss and Briggs previously worked together on the love-em or hate-em horror films, Hostel and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “A 3D shark movie? Did I hit my head and wake up in 1983?” Sadly, I’m afraid not. Yes, the last film that brought the Carcharodon carcharias (that’s a Great White for all you non-zoology nerds) to the big screen in 3D was the critically panned Jaws 3D, but that’s not what Shark Night’s producers are thinking about. No, they’re thinking about the fact that, despite being an absolute dud of a movie, Jaws 3D was number one at the box office on opening weekend.

You see, as we’ve lamented previously here at Screen Rant, 3D is a throwback Hollywood fad that refuses to die. While I respect Ellis for actually shooting his films in 3D (there is a demonstrable difference in films that were shot in 3D versus movies that were converted to 3D in post-production), the fact remains that, more often than not, 3D is just a way for Hollywood execs to earn extra money on an inferior product.

I’m a huge fan of shark movies (Jaws is an all-time favorite and I actually enjoy the campy Deep Blue Sea as well), so I’m not going to write this movie off yet. However, I will say that a B-movie in 3D is still a B-movie and I’ll be happy for the day (although it’s probably never coming) when we all don’t have to pay extra money for the gimmick of 3D.

What do you think? Am I being overly critical? Does Shark Night 3D sound totally awesome to you?

Image Source: Fashionably Geek

Source: Deadline via Bloody Disgusting

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: shark night 3d

6 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Mike,

    I'm a big shark movie (and monster movies in general) fan, too. You should read Steve Alten's excellent MEG series, which should become a film in the next couple of years. http://www.stevealten.com

    Heath

    • Im working on the three animatronic sharks which include a 6.5 and 10ft great white and a 10ft hammerhead. So i had the chance to look and the story board and it seems promising enough.

  2. I think Hollywood needs to learn that this 3D era cannot reverse direction. You can't make a movie filmed in 2D and make it a great 3D experience. I know it's all about the 'Benjamins' with the movie industry, but pretty soon the clear difference in sales between Avatar's 3D and any other converted film has to be giving them some kind of indication as to quality. (If only in the 3D aspect.)

  3. dont worry I'm going to write this movie off yet.

  4. Can you say year of 3D and remakes?! My GAWD and now on to the cast for this fishy film: http://www.fearnet.com/news/b20064_shark_night_3d_claims_4_more_victims.html

  5. Just because 3D is being used as a gimmick doesn’t mean that it has to be.

    Most filmmakers haven’t figured out how to do 3D properly. And they don’t understand the purpose of it. The purpose of 3D should be to create a virtual reality experience where it seems like everything is right there in front of you.

    The way to do that is to make the stereoscopic parameters (focal length, camera separation, and screen separation) approximate those of the human eyes as closely as possible. But the filmmakers don’t understand that.

    One big mistake that the filmmakers are making with 3D is changing the focal length — “zooming” — thoughout the film. Zooming is not a natural function of the human eye; although you can usually get away with it with non-3D films, with 3D, it gives it a weird, artificial appearance (like looking through binoculars). If you want to get closer or farther, move the camera closer or farther.