Louis Leterrier says 3D conversion of Clash of the Titans was "horrible" and a "gimmick to steal money from the audience"

When Louis Leterrier's CLASH OF THE TITANS came out in 2010, one of the biggest complaints was the rush job on the 3D. The studio decided at the last minute to do the 3D conversion and it all was done in 10 weeks...and it showed. Also, sorry to remind you of this but I thought it was very cool of the director to be so candid about the ordeal while talking to Huffington Post:

Huffington Post: I have to say, you seem like a much happier human being right now than when I spoke to you for "Clash of the Titans."

Louis Leterrier: It was a very tough experience. I was literally thrown under the bus for something that ... I still have a good relationship with Warner Bros., but at one point it was like, "Yeah, Louis chose the 3D." And I was like, "No, guys, I didn't choose the 3D. I actually told you it's not working. I couldn't control it. I said don't do it."

HuffPo: The 3D on "Clash of the Titans" was famously rushed.

LL: Yeah, exactly. It was famously rushed and famously horrible. It was absolutely horrible, the 3D. Nothing was working, it was just a gimmick to steal money from the audience. I'm a good boy and I rolled with the punches and everything, but it's not my movie. "Clash of the Titans" is not my movie. And ultimately that's why I didn't do the sequel.

We've had several discussions on the site on the pros and cons of 3D. Is it worth the money? Which audiences does it ideally appeal to? What is the shelf life? The only time I went to see a movie strictly for the 3D was AVATAR. Hell, that was the number one reason. James Cameron poured his heart into bringing the effect new life and showing that it was more than just a gimmick. But was that a one time thing? Why are we continuing to do this to films if for nothing more than to jack up prices at the theater? I think it works for kids, who love being able to be so close to their favorite characters. I also saw the re-release of JURASSIC PARK, and the 3D was neat but I was there to strictly experience one of my favorite films once more.

So is 3D part of the experience or are we merely being tricked into thinking it is? Are more filmmakers having to "roll with the punches" when the decision comes down to add the 3D aspect to a film? What impact will this leave on cinema down the road?

Source: Huffington Post



Latest Entertainment News Headlines