It seems that a single day can't go by without us hearing that a new blockbuster is either going to be shot in 3D or converted in post-production (The Green Hornet and The Last Airbender being the latest ones). Why should Sherlock Holmes be any different?
LA Times recently got a chance to speak to Sherlock Holmes 2 (and Paper Man) writers, Kieran and Michele Mulroney, and they discussed what we can expect from the upcoming sequel, including that it might be "conceived and produced" in 3D (instead of being converted after the fact).
Although nothing has been confirmed, they say there's been a number of "serious conversations" at Warner Bros. about taking Sherlock Holmes 2 down the 3D route. The discussions are still underway but it's not a case where the studio is forcing this on the writers because they are actually open to it (no word yet on how director Guy Ritchie feels). Even though they're not keen on every single movie Hollywood makes being in 3D, they think, "Sherlock would be great in 3-D."
I beg to differ. Not once when I was watching the enjoyable but not great (in my opinion) first Sherlock Holmes did I think to myself, "This scene would be so much better if it were in 3D." Unless the writers have some sort of amazing tricks up their sleeves with the script for Sherlock Holmes 2 that makes the 3D totally justified. But at this point, I don't see how 3D would benefit a Sherlock Holmes movie - rather it would detract from the enjoyment.
Although I didn't think Sherlock Holmes was all that it could have been (although Screen Rant head honcho Vic Holtreman loved it), I still think it showed enough potential for a quality sequel. Hopefully the story (which wasn't great in the first film) can be fleshed out a bit more in the sequel.
Would you like to see Sherlock Holmes 2 in 3D? Or is it yet another project that should not jump onto the bandwagon?
Sherlock Holmes 2 is set to start shooting this June and will likely hit theaters in the first half of 2011.