I just couldn't resist the opportunity to start a thread titled "James Cameron's Cleopatra in 3D!" Okay I guess there should be some semblance of content. Angelina Jolie is interested in starring. I won't even bother asking why a story about Cleopatra needs to be in 3D.
Cleopatra's reign did include numerous battles, so there's your 3d content pretty much. As for Jolie, one thing that historical dramas never seem to get right is that Cleopatra was actually not that attractive or exotic.
Do you bother asking why a story about Cleopatra needs to be in color? Or why it needs 7.1 surround sound? So it seems this time they get it right. But James Cameron directing a movie that he didn't write the script for sounds rather unusual.
Yep, it's a big movie, lots of scenery - no reason that it shouldn't be in 3D. If Cameron directs it, I'm there. Otherwise...maybe.
One problem being Jolie is NOT 19 years old, which is Cleo's age when she met Caesar, although she is almost the age Cleo was when she died (Jolie 35, Cleo 39).
Well, that goes for every movie set in ancient times. Actors are always too old. And they have perfect teeth. Have bodybuilder muscles. Are perfectly clean like they showered two times a day. And women have their legs shaved.
As far as having their legs shaved, that would be accurate for Ancient Egypt where total removal of body hair was customary.
I'm perfectly happy with 7.0 surround sound. And shockingly enough, there are all sorts of great movies in b/w - even big, blowsy epics! No reason that it should, either. All this 3D crap is mindless. Avatar was a good movie for 3D because a) the visuals were incredible to begin with and b) the rest of the movie was considerably less than incredible. When you're forcing the visuals to make up for everything else, sure, go for 3D. But to use 3D right outta the gate makes me wonder whether anyone has faith in old-fashioned stuff like writing and acting that 3D will do nothing for. Finally, someone came up with a valid answer! Maybe this will be the Asterix & Obelix version.
Cant you imagine Angelina Jolie as Cleopatra dressed in a gauzy white dress, backlit so you can almost make out her breasts and nipples through the material and in glorious 3D.
What's all the fuss about it being in 3D? It's a growing medium that's finally become at least vaguely watchable. Give it time to grow for goodness sake! I fully expect that as soon as 3D without the silly glasses is perfected for tv screens we'll be seeing everything from movies, to soap operas and news reports in full 3D. It just so happens that right now we're in that same OTT phase things were in in the 60's when colour TV first became economical.
At first I didn't have a problem with 3D but now it's like every. Single. Fucking. Movie. Has to be in 3D which brings around several problems: Avatar showed that 3D can be done in this day and age without looking like someone is playing with colorforms on your glasses, it was deep, immersive and captivating. But because Cameron made the movie to be in 3D and he didn't hold back on doing it as perfectly as possible. Most of these crap movies coming out? Not so much. A lot of these movies they just did a last-minute hackish rush job in making the movie 3D (which can be done with computers even if the movie wasn't filmed with 3D in mind). Look at most of the crap, one-off, movies that come over the course of the year does it really make sense for many of them to be in 3D? Wasn't fucking Marmaduke in 3D? It's crap. If the movie wasn't filmed in 3D, don't release it in 3D. It's just the studios wanting to make that extra few dollars off of you, not because it enrichens or expands the art. What Cameron seems to be doing is all fine and good as films the movie and 3D and does the best job he can, but most of these other studios are just trying to cash in. Wearing the glasses is just a pain in the ass. If were going to make movies in 3D that's fine, but do it right, do it well, and make sure its a movie worth seeing in 3D. But most of these studios are seeing this: Avatar = ~3m box office Avatar = 3D 3D = ~3m box office. They're missing the whole "Avatar was a movie people wanted to watch, was made in 3D, was made well, was made by the king of well-made action movies, and the whole "3D" thing isn't what got people in the door." Cameron's Cleopatra in 3D? May be very well worth seeing, the way he did Avatar was pretty spectacular. But, I'm tired of seeing all the "Stupid Filler Kiddy Comedy in 3D" movies.
I'm of two minds about Angelina. Sometimes I think she's beautiful, sometimes I wonder why there's an inflatable life raft where her lips should be. Wasn't somebody saying she's gotten too skinny lately?
When a lot of people complain about 3D, it makes me think about the past. Radio Listeners - "That darn TV will never catch on." Movie Watchers - "No body wants Sound & Color." TV Watchers - "Who's going to watch stuff on the internet."