Rumor: LES MIZ movie may be shot in 3D... Thoughts?

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 11:00am

"Because who wouldn't want to see a film set in 19th-century France shot in 3D? Word on the street is that Universal may be considering shooting their new star-studded version of Les Miserables in 3D. The film, which stars Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe (and is expected to add more people like Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush and Emma Watson, potentially), will most likely stick somewhat close to the novel, which follows the struggles of a former convict named Jean Valjean (Jackman) who's being pursued by the cutthroat Inspector Javert (Crowe) during a time of political upheaval in France.

The film will be directed by Tom Hooper, and is due out on December 7th, 2012, which will probably put it right smack in contention for Oscars that year. While we admit the battle scenes could look cool in 3D, it still feels somewhat weird adding the technology to period films. Universal may see 3D as a way of attracting younger audiences to a story that sort of has that old-timey Broadway rust attached to it, but will it cheapen the property at the same time? Plus, with 3D dying its inevitable slow death, is it really worth the extra expense at this point?

Note: We've reached out to Universal for comment, but have received no response as of this posting."

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/les-miserables-3d/4454?wssac=164&wssaffid=news

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/exclusive-les-miserables-strongly.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Marketsaw+%28MarketSaw%29

I don't know how reliable this source is, but I say NAY!

Updated On: 9/18/11 at 11:00 AM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 11:03am

Someone stop with the 3-D b.s.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 11:10am

that sort of has that old-timey Broadway rust attached to it...

Come again. Exactly what is this supposed to mean?

[chellylovesrent2]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 11:34am

Why would they even make it in 3D? The majority of the live action movies out there that are in 3D only have like one scene that actually takes advantage of the 3D effect.
Les Miz doesn't need it.

I say NAY too.

[Q]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 11:59am

"Why would they even make it in 3D?"

Because they realize they're looking at a more limited demographic for this project, despite the name recognition, and they want the higher return rate per ticket.

Show business, remember, show BUSINESS.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 12:07pm

And really who cares if this will be filmed in 3D? When it gets released you will have the option to go see it in regular 2D, in 3D or even Real 3D...just pick your preferred format and go see it!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 12:13pm

The reality is that 3D is likely here to stay. With technology advancing the way it is, we're only a couple years off from the TV that allows us to watch 3D in our living rooms with no glasses at which point it's likely it will be the new standard.

[julesboogie]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 12:27pm

I avoid 3d like the plague. Never once has it been necessary. Not even for Avatar. Unless im going to be able to see the notes coming out of their mouths, then watching an entire movie through glasses is a no-go!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 12:39pm

What Carlos said. No one's going to make you go to the 3D version.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 2:34pm

let's hope it would even be offered in 2D! that's the most annoying part of 3D is that sometimes (not always) some movie theaters don't even offer a 2D option! bugs the crap out of me!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 2:41pm

Actually, 3-d TVs are a terrible market failure. No one's buying them. I don't think they're here to stay. There's an increasing backlash against 3-d movies as well.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 3:28pm

The 3D sets that exist here now are horrible sellers because of the glasses. An what I said in my post was that once 3D TV's that you can watch without glasses are available, they're going to sell HUGE and I can see it becoming the new standard once that technology is perfected.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 3:44pm

"The 3D sets that exist here now are horrible sellers because of the glasses. An what I said in my post was that once 3D TV's that you can watch without glasses are available, they're going to sell HUGE and I can see it becoming the new standard once that technology is perfected."

I naively assumed something along those lines was either being developed or was already available. I was initially all for the 3D as I thought it'd give the director reason to include more panoramic shots and sweeping camera gestures especially during musical interludes that would go well with the music. I'd still be for it if, like you said, there's some development that chucks the glasses and is more subtle rather than popping out right in front of you. I don't want to see them vibrating Adam's apples as they sing, ha.

But not the cheesy glasses thing. Although it's not as frightful now that I know we won't be subjected to tinted glasses and a blurry picture against our will, hehe.

Updated On: 9/18/11 at 03:44 PM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 3:53pm

This makes sense, because live theatre is the original 3-D.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 4:07pm

Even without the glasses, some percentage of the population (I want to say 30%) can't watch 3-d without becoming sick. That's cutting out a huge part of your consumer base. Also, 3-d movies aren't doing well in theaters because people don't want to pay $2 extra for them.

I'm one of them, btw, which is why I hate 3-d movies. That and I find them super cheesy. Ebert feels the same way!

Updated On: 9/18/11 at 04:07 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 4:20pm

Ok, well Ebert has also changed his mind on countless things throughout the years.

Regardless, once the technology is perfected there's no way to know if people will "get sick" sitting in their living room with no glasses watching a three dimensional image on their screen. All I'm saying is that it's coming and it's going to be big when it gets here and most probably change the way films are made from that point on. Because having glasses-free 3D in theaters is being worked on as well (with pretty much the same format as the TV's) so it's possible everything will be like that sooner or later.

And if you don't go to see 3D movies how do you know that they're all super cheesy? That's like someone seeing GOOD VIBRATIONS and saying all Broadway shows suck.

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 4:37pm

Over the past few years, I've continued to look at 3D as just a more expensive gimmick, I think the only movie to use it properly was Avatar, unlike what julesboogie said, because it wasn't "Wham!" "Kapam!" moments like every other 3d movie before and since, it added a realistic sense of depth and definition, and focus when needed. I don't mind 3D if it's used subtly.

And now, a snarky comment: I saw Les Miz in 3D, it was live!
Updated On: 9/18/11 at 04:37 PM

[Nettik]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 4:40pm

If it's in 3-D, I hope it's also released in 2-D. I can't see 3-D movies due to them being a migraine trigger for me.

[Fan2]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 5:37pm

3D I believe is always an extra thing, there is always the regular 2D version you could see.

I read on one site (I've lost the link) that said they could see it in 3D because it would be like being in the theater and it would enhance the battle scene (or something like that).

[Kad]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 6:03pm

Both Up and Coraline used 3D to great effect. Neither film had the cliche "thing flying out of the screen". For Coraline, I'd say it greatly enhanced the viewing experience, it being a stop-motion film and shot in the 3D. It added a great sense of depth and being there.

People are unfairly prejudiced against 3D because of its proliferation. That is the same as being prejudiced against all action movies because of Transformers.

[HumATune]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 6:06pm

If 3D become the new regular, those of us who literally can't see 3D because of eye issues are screwed.

[minicko88]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 6:10pm

Oh come on you guys! You can't imagine how amazing it will be when Young Cosette throws her broom right into your face when she sings "Castle on a Cloud." Or... when Javert dodges the chair swung by Valjean, and there is this cool matrix effect when Javert fires back a shot that Valjean catches with his bare hands. Then, throws into the audience for our amusement! I CANT WAIT!!!

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 7:15pm

I highly doubt 3D will ever exist without 2D also being an option.

Also, LOL @minicko88.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 7:16pm

I have seen 3d movies, if I hadn't I wouldn't know they make me feel sick.

And, yeah, it's fine if they make this 3-d as long as 3-d is also an option.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/18/11 at 7:30pm

The only 3D movie I've seen has been Ice Age 3 (I know, I know...), which was actually rather underwhelming as far as its 3D-ness went. There were only a couple of scenes where the 3D made sense. Otherwise it was like it was done in 3D just because.