After Clash of the Titans and Avatar: The Last Airbender, we're leery of any movies rocking the converted-to-3D tag, but a few directors (not coincidentally, ones with 3D productions in the making they'd likely appreciate us buying tickets to see) claim the process itself isn't the problem. Among other comments (including discussing the upcoming return of Avatar to theaters exclusively in 3D, sequels and a new 3D flick on the way from Guillermo del Toro) with MarketSaw, our friend Jimmy C said "[Titans] showed a fundamental lack of knowledge about stereo space, in addition to the shoddy work that comes from rushing." Of course, we'll have to wait to see what the converted version of Titanic looks like, currently undergoing a process taking between 8-12 months. Eli Roth is in Piranha 3D, which debuts next weekend and is also a film that was filmed in 2D and converted in post, but he claims it's different from M Knight's flick because they planned ahead:
"You can shoot digital 3-D and it looks great, or you can shoot film and convert and it looks great - but only if you planned to do it that way from the start...With Piranha 3D, the very title of the film is Piranha 3D," he continues. "It was written that way and photographed to be converted. This means that when you're setting up a shot, next to the camera is a technical adviser from the 3D company who tells you exactly what light won't work for the 3D, how far the subject has to be from the lens if you want it to look good when it pops out of the camera, etc...It's not easy and it's not instant and when it's a last minute rushed decision we can see it immediately. But to associate Piranha 3D, a film which spent years planning this, months shooting it with the technicians on set checking the convertibility of every shot, and so far 8 months working on the conversion, is not fair."
Check Bloody-Disgusting for the rest of his comments, and listen to Cameron in his own words on MarketSaw -- we'll see how audiences and critics react over the coming weeks and months.