Robin Hood Will Be 3D – Wait, No It Won’t

Published 4 years ago by

robin hood heaer Robin Hood Will Be 3D – Wait, No It Won’t

Hollywood studios in general have never been afraid to beat a dead horse or milk a cow for all she’s worth. They’re mostly those guys at a party that walk around telling the same tired joke (until everyone has heard it at least twice) and still expect the same laugh each and every time. This mindset is the reason why we have 6 Police Academy movies, 4 Rambo films, 6 Rocky’s, 6 Star Wars films, 4 Indiana Jones films and 6 Saw films…with more on the way.

To be honest, they can’t help themselves; it’s like an addiction to them and it’s not something even Dr. Drew can help them overcome. Their latest addiction comes in the form of 3D technology. It’s not exactly a new technology – it’s been around for 30 plus years – but it’s just recently that directors have started to use it properly (to enhance a film) and not purely as a gimmick. Up and Avatar would be the best examples of how to use 3d properly, with The Final Destination and Journey to the Center of the Earth being examples of how NOT to use it.

Yesterday, First Showing pointed us to an article over at the UK’s Times Online saying:

“Sir Ridley Scott has asked for a further $8m from his backer, Universal Films, to add an extra dimension to his untitled Robin Hood venture starring Russell Crowe in the lead role and Cate Blanchett as Maid Marian. Two versions of the film will be released in May.”

Was anyone really surprised that an announcement like this was going to happen? Scott is one of the finest directors in history and if the man asks for $8 million dollars to convert his next film to 3D, then by gum you give it to him.

That being said, turning a 2D movie like Robin Hood into a 3D movie post-filming is a really bad idea. Avatar looked great because Cameron  planned for the 3D from the get-go and it paid off in spades. Scott, however, did not shoot his film planning for 3D; it was an afterthought and I just can’t see 3D having the same effect on Robin Hood.

If Scott and Universal were to try and use 3D conversion on Robin Hood and it fails to impress, then it doesn’t matter how good of a story he’s told or how good the action and acting are, audiences will walk out of theaters only thinking about how bad the 3D effects were.

3d projector Optoma Robin Hood Will Be 3D – Wait, No It Won’t

Maybe that’s the reason why later that day, First Showing heard from a rep at Universal shooting down the story as completely false, stating that Robin Hood is NOT going to be in 3D. Of course, it’s not like Hollywood reps haven’t misrepresented themselves and the truth before just to throw the fans and bloggers off the scent. In this case, it really boils down to taking the word of an industry “Yes Man.” This could be a total smoke screen and you’ll be ponying up an extra $3 to watch Robin shooting arrows at your face – or, Yes Man’s word is good and you won’t. Time will tell.

If Universal and Scott are going to make the 3D conversion happen for Robin Hood then they should start soon, because according to Bobby Jaffe, who manages one of the 3D conversion companies, “we can turn an older film into 3-D in around 16 weeks.” That means to make their May release date someone needs to get cracka’lackin’!

What would you think about watching Robin Hood in 3D and are you prepared for all of the 2D to 3D conversions that are undoubtedly on the way?

Robin Hood shoots his arrows at screens May 14th, 2010.

Source: First Showing

TAGS: robin hood

14 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. If naughty bits are involved, then by all means 3D me.

  2. True or not,
    Its a ridiculous candidate for 3D .
    Same goes for The Three Musketeers .

  3. I myself am not interested in this movie. I like Crowe but he’s just not Robin Hood in my eyes ( too old i think). Couldn’t care less if the movie was 3-D or not.

  4. DIE bad idea DIE!!…

    excuse the vulgarity… but I mean c’mon… just work on the story people! People wear contacts to avoid wearing glasses, others wear glasses because they need to… I’m watching a movie, let me watch it with as little weight on my nose bridge and ears please… what’s next? Individual 3d helmet theaters??

  5. I enjoyed the 3-D version of Avatar, but I don’t think it was really worth the 50% upcharge for the ticket. I highly doubt I will ever go see another film in IMAX 3-D for this reason alone. Plus, if you move your head a litte bit, the picture goes blurry. From now on I think I will be seeing the regular, 2-D version of all the films. As for Robin Hood, you know it would be gimmicks like arrows flying right at you or someone swinging towards you on a rope. At least Cameron used it to immerse you in the film, not as a cheap prop.

  6. I’m all for blindly blaming hollywood for everything that goes wrong in the world and all, but umm I think we the fans are more to blame for all the Star Wars films and all the Indie films basically for most the sequels. We go and see them and we always beg for more. Most of the people who complain about to many sequels being made will still cry out for more when it’s a franchise they love.

  7. DanelF,
    I agree with what you said about the sequels and remakes
    But I NEVER Spend money on films that are done in 3D .

  8. booo…

    @Vic

    Dude. I watched the Eroll Flynn version a few nights ago per your recommendation. That dude IS Robin Hood. I freakin' loved it. Good call

  9. Glad to hear you liked it and that you FINALLY saw it. :-)

    Vic

  10. yeah man. Thanks for the recommendation. I wish I could do my own stunts like Errol Flynn. That dude was nuts!

    And thanks for the new comment system. I am stoked we are using disqus.

  11. booo…

    @Vic

    Dude. I watched the Eroll Flynn version a few nights ago per your recommendation. That dude IS Robin Hood. I freakin' loved it. Good call

  12. Glad to hear you liked it and that you FINALLY saw it. :-)

    Vic

  13. yeah man. Thanks for the recommendation. I wish I could do my own stunts like Errol Flynn. That dude was nuts!

    And thanks for the new comment system. I am stoked we are using disqus.

  14. I just came back from the theater and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. This new take has great actors, nice costume, great camera direction and a solid story.

    The acting is very good and especially Cate Blanchet shines. Max von Sydow’s English is getting better with every movie and he can finally portray someone without a Swedish accent.

    The costume is well done and almost as historically accurate as one can ask from a movie that tells a mostly fictional story.

    There are a few issues of course, that makes me lower the score.

    Comical relief is avoided mostly, but could have been left out altogether in my opinion. Luckily the people used for comic relief are not the ones you’d expect.

    And the final battle which is a big part of the movie annoys me greatly in it’s composition, and you will see why when you watch the movie.

    And what in the world *is* that weapon that Little John is wielding? Could they not come up with something more appropriate?

    Reviews at MooMovie Best + Latest Online Movies (http://moomovie.blogspot.com)

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.

Be Social, Follow Us!!