Is Iron Man Headed For 3D (and IMAX)?

Published 6 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:26 pm,

3D is all the rage these days, and recently at Comic-Con, the technology made several big appearances. Whether actually being shown or discussed, 3D was a big part of the convention in San Diego, where films like James Cameron’s Avatar, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol showed off footage in the “come to life” technology.

Jon Favreau was also at Comic-Con, treating the 6,000-plus fans who were lucky enough to get into Hall H to the first ever footage from Iron Man 2. Screen Rant head honcho, Vic Holtreman, was one of those lucky folks and he (along with pretty much everyone else) has had nothing but amazing things to say about it.

However according to Favreau himself it could have been even better. He actually wanted to make the Iron Man sequel in 3D (he had hoped for this almost a year ago), and wants the third one done with the technology if possible. The director spoke to MTV about his liking for 3D and specifically praised James Cameron for what he’s doing with Avatar:

“I really love the 3D… I like all the new technologies, 3-D being one of them. James Cameron had brought me around a few months back to see what he was doing with ‘Avatar’; that’s what’s been seen now by many of the fans… It was exciting to go in there and see what he’s doing with cutting-edge technology. He’s just a great storyteller as well, and to see a great filmmaker working with the cutting-edge of this technology is amazing.”

Favreau went on to say that he loved the footage he saw of Avatar so much that he almost made Iron Man 2 in 3D, but cited certain problems like time and money constraints, as well as it meaning you have to shoot it digitally, as reasons why he didn’t:

“I talked to Marvel after I’d seen [Cameron's footage] about doing ‘Iron Man [2]‘ in 3-D… I was hoping to get a shot at doing it this time around, but it didn’t work out that way… There are a few drawbacks to it at this point – there’s more cost involved, and it also forces you to shoot digitally. My cinematographer [Matthew Libatique] really likes film, and ‘Iron Man’ had a certain look because it was film.”

But nonetheless Favreau remains optimistic about 3D being used for Iron Man 3:

“I think that, as the digital technology gets better, 3-D is going to be a lot easier… Certainly for ‘Iron Man,’ I think it would work out well.”

iron man 2 splash Is Iron Man Headed For 3D (and IMAX)?

Favreau says that even though Iron Man 2 wasn’t shot with IMAX cameras, he’d like to see it “blown up” for IMAX nonetheless. The same thing was done for Star Trek this summer, and even The Dark Knight to some extent last summer (several scenes were shot with IMAX cameras).

Favreau goes on to remind us that he’s not signed on to direct Iron Man 3 nor The Avengers movie that Marvel has lined up for 2012 (which, in case you don’t know, will feature Iron Man along with Thor, Captain America, Hulk and Nick Fury). But he says he has talked to Marvel about the content of at least The Avengers, and he’ll be involved in at least some capacity. With the great job he did with Iron Man (and that looks to continue with Iron Man 2) I hope he stays on as director for Iron Man 3 as well as The Avengers.

With regards to 3D, I think having that red and gold suit on the biggest screen possible, as well as feeling like you can reach out and grab it, can only be a plus. I’m sure Favreau – with both his enthusiasm for 3D and him proving with the first Iron Man that he knows what he’s doing with the franchise – would utilize 3D in the right way.

What about you: Do you think the 3D and IMAX routes would be a good way to go for the Iron Man franchise? Or is it fine the way it is in 2D and on the standard screen?

Iron Man 2 is scheduled to be released on May 7th, 2010.

Sources: MTV via /Film

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to 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. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I’ve never experienced 3D, so I have no idea how great it is, but if it means you actually think you can reach out and touch whatever’s on the screen, I’d say every movie should be shot in 3D. In principle. Can’t wait to see T2 in 3D.

  2. I dunno. Call me old-fashioned. But I think film is fine as it is.

  3. Everyone follows what James cameron does because he’s great at what he does. Favreau wouldn’t make the change unless it’s worth it.

  4. Everything will be 3D soon. Like it or not.

  5. Oh wonderful. They’re going to screw up another great movie with this 3D nonsense. I’ve seen several of them so far, and this new 3D crap has done nothing for my viewing enjoyment other than jack the ticket price up another $3/movie.

  6. Never actually experienced 3D so far, though, so I really can’t talk. But I can’t see how it can enhance my viewing enjoyment any more than high definition. Ah well, as long as I don’t have to wear any gimmicky glasses.

  7. Well when 3D takes over I’ll only watch movies on dvd.
    And hopefully when tv is totally converted to 3D I’ll be dead and gone.

  8. Ya know, all you guys that hate 3D should really walk around all day with an eye patch over one eye so you can experience true 2D all day long. 8-)


  9. Been there, done that Vic. I’m just saying that it’s not worth the extra $3. $15.50 for a movie is pushing it, even if it is IMAX, but $18.50 is absurd! I could wait a few months & buy the same movie on DVD for less.

  10. I don’t have any problems with the way 3D looks I have a problem with the way its going to be used for marketing and mind control.

    I would suggest you google “3D and its subliminal methodology” but you won’t find much because that info is being suppressed.

  11. I have experienced 3d in afew different movies, and when done right it is a definite plus. One of the most beautiful movies i have ever seen “UP” was in digital 3d and it was amazing, I also saw it in just digital and still good but not great. When things are just popping out at you it gets old and tiresome and usually gives me a headache. If done tastefully though it is well worth the money.

  12. I’ve only seen Up in 3D and thought it was gorgeous. It certainly would be great to see Iron Man, or even better, The Avengers on 3D. Now if there was a posibility in the near future to be able to see in films in 3D without ussing any glasses, that would be top-notch. Lol, but that’s too much asking isn’t it? :) Haha… men can dream right?

  13. @Iron Knight, that’s only a few years away. Within 10 years 3D will be the norm.
    Avatar is going to be the starting off point. By this time next year you will already see 3D handhelds.

    3D will be sold as the true visual experience. There’s no escaping it.

  14. I was watching UP in 3D, and all of a sudden I got out of my seat and start clucking like a chicken, can’t explain why… :-D

    Just kidding, Up was very nice in 3D. I can’t wait to see T2 on the big screen again…

  15. @ 790. Yeah, the next thing is a virtual room where we are actually IN the movie, I mean, if we saw Avatar then they would place us in the same place in Pandora next to the protagonist and have us follow him through all the adevnture, by his side.

    @ Ken J. Lol, you had me at that one :) Haha…

  16. Ridicule is often used when ignorant people feel there belief systems challenged. You can always spot them in a crowd they are the first to incite divsion and take on. a mob mentality.

    The facts about subliminal 3D and its many uses are are out there. Once you discover them, you will see the potential for abuse from media and entertainment congloms…

  17. LOL, or it’s an opportunist finding an opportunity to make a joke. :-)

    I took psychology for the cute girls, so don’t ask me. I can’t neatly classify everyone. ;-)

    Speaking of chicken, now I’m hungry…

  18. What makes you think I was talking about you Ken J?

  19. ?? Just talking about your statement that neatly categorizes people, sounds like the overly simplistic psychology they would teach in the first intro to psychology classes you see all of the cute girls signing up for, don’t you think? :-)

  20. “… The Avengers movie that Marvel has lined up for 2012 (which, in case you don’t know, will feature Iron Man along with Thor, Captain America, Hulk and Nick Fury).”

    As of right now, Hulk is actually NOT confirmed for The Avengers movie. We all want him to be in it but he is the only character on the list that might not make it.

    How does Ross Miller continuously state opinions as facts?

  21. @ludovicotek

    Don’t be a jerk. It’s stated right here on the site that I heard it from Kevin Feige’s own mouth that Hulk would be in the movie.

    Do a little research before you start throwing around insults.


  22. I haven’t been able to check out any of the new films in the new 3-D, but it doesn’t really appeal to me. I hope that they also keep a regular 2-D version of the film. I am NOT against the use of the technology, I am against the use of the gimmicky “yo-yo in your face” bit.

    I wish they had holodecks. Imagine experiencing Iron Man AS Iron Man!! :D

  23. @Andy S

    I’m with you – I hate the gimmicky use of 3D, but I am a fan of using it to enhance what’s on the screen and add depth of field to scenes.


  24. Thanks Vic. The gimmicky use of it, such as that episode of Chuck in 3-D is so nauseating. Figuratively, not literally. I didn’t have the glasses to watch that episode of Chuck, and the green/red ghosting was very annoying. I say NO MORE 3-D on TV!!

    I’m telling ya, WE NEED HOLODECKS!! :D

  25. Hulk is not in the Avengers as of right now. It would be ridiculous if the hulk isn’t in it IMO. Major oversight.

  26. @ Vic Holtreman

    Quoted from Mr. Rob Keyes’ article titled “Could Edward Norton appear in Iron Man 2?”

    “…Kevin Feige, at San Diego Comic-Con, he said there’s a “chance” that we’ll see Hulk in the Avengers film but he didn’t give any confirmation.”

    You guys are the one’s who are saying that Hulk is NOT CONFIRMED. I’m really not trying to be a jerk. And I didn’t insult Ross. All I said was that he states opinions as if they were fact. Believe me, I want Hulk to be in The Avengers movie. Everyone does. All I said is that he was not totally confirmed at this point and your website has posted information backing up this claim.

    I love this site and visit it daily for breaking news and info on the movies I love. I did the research. I know what I am talking about. I read your article before posting any comments to make sure they are correct. If anything, you have insulted me by implying otherwise and calling me a jerk. Thanks.

  27. @udovicotek

    I was out of line, but what was up with this statement:

    “How does Ross Miller *continuously* state opinions as facts?”

    The implication is that he repeatedly posts misinformation on the site. That tripped my trigger because it was a “trollish” comment and that’s why I lost it a little bit.

    You have to understand how roundtable interviews work: You have multiple tables, each with different groups of journalists. The actors/producers/etc make the rounds at these tables, where different questions are asked and unique responses are given.

    At the io9 table, apparently Feige was more hesitant with his answer, but at my table, Feige did not sound hesitant at all – his statement was very clear. More the question at our table was whether Norton would return – not whether the Hulk would appear.

    So if anything, it’s Rob, not Ross who “flubbed” because he had a first hand report from me on what Feige said – on the other hand he was reporting what io9 heard from Feige.

    Given all that, I apologize for calling you a jerk – in retrospect it was out of line.

    Understand that we get hundreds of comments a day here, and there are a fair amount of people that try to be trolls, start flame wars, etc. so I’m on my guard for that. If you had instead just said “Why did Ross Miller state opinion as fact?” instead of “why does he continuously” (which I don’t think you have any basis for) then I wouldn’t have been so short with my reply.


  28. i am in favor of 3D & digital effects for ironman but only if they make ironman 4 & 5 because i am scared that it will mess up the movie franchise or make ironman look cartoonish & we don’t want to screw up a good thing going!

  29. First of all; 3D isn’t new. Quite old in fact. This allone means that many people are impressed for many decades, otherwise it was vanished long ago. Each time it becomes popular again equipment becomes better and more easy to use.
    Now it’s possible to view these movies even at home in great quality but ONLY of they are made well!
    Pitty 3D does nothing for wiredwizard. Possibly this is physical or you just have seen a poorly made 3D movie or a bad conversion like Clash of the Titans. The $3.00 extra is no problem for me and many others. Isn’t it possible for you to see the same movie in another room or cinema in 2D?
    I’m sorry for you, but I’m convinced 3D will stay this time!

    Sander Kiesel