Alien prequel will be in 3D

Green Lantern and Sucker Punch to get the same treatment

 

The three-dimensional revolution rolls unstoppably forward, with news emerging that Ridley Scott’s Alien reboot will be filmed in 3D.

Roger Christian, art-director on the original Alien, told Shadowlocked that Scott has confirmed the new prequel will be shot a la Avatar, and even hinted at the potential for a new trilogy.

"Ridley told me some of his ideas when we were here in Toronto," said Christian. "He has a very clear understanding of where this should go. They kind of stopped dead one of the greatest horror franchises there’s ever been, and it had legs to go on. So I’m hoping he’ll revive another three. The world certainly wants it."



Meanwhile, Warner Brothers have decided to jump on the bandwagon by announcing that both Green Lantern and Sucker Punch will also be shown in 3-D.

The crucial difference here though is that the 3D will be added in post-production, as was the case with Clash Of The Titans.

All of which kind of smacks of an afterthought designed to rake in a few more box-office bucks…don’t be surprised if release dates for both become mysteriously cloudy over the coming months.

Genius or gimmick? Where do you stand on the 3D revolution?

Total Film on Facebook

Comments

    • apo1978

      Mar 5th 2010, 13:28

      STOP. SAYING. REBOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Alert a moderator

    • sowasred2012

      Mar 5th 2010, 15:31

      ALSO. STOP. SAYING. "WILL BE FILMED IN 3D"!!! 3D is the new remake/reboot and we should just assume that any film announced from now one will be one or both.

      Alert a moderator

    • namedropper

      Mar 5th 2010, 19:18

      I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed by the whole 3D thing. Avatar was ok but I saw it in both 2 and 3D and thought the ad for Alice in Wonderland was more impressive with the latter. The problem for me is that too much of the film has to be filmed in such a way that it plays to the effect. Therefore you get more action pointed towards the camera. Meh it's ok if you like that kind of thing. Personally I'd rather Cameron etc. work on effects which haven't really moved on that much since 2001 (the movie and not the year).

      Alert a moderator

    • Ali1748

      Mar 5th 2010, 19:48

      I forget is Sir Ridley directing the prequel ?

      Alert a moderator

    • Lingdada

      Mar 6th 2010, 5:45

      I won't see any movie now unless it's in 4D!!

      Alert a moderator

    • duncancowles

      Mar 7th 2010, 18:29

      the occasional bit of 3d is enjoyable but i'm not liking the way things are going. too much 3d, it should be restricted to imax.

      Alert a moderator

    • DanielMcA

      Mar 7th 2010, 19:59

      You want a major break-through which will enhance our cinema-going experience? Stop teenagers using their f*****g phones during a film.

      Alert a moderator

    • RaveyDaveyGravy

      Mar 8th 2010, 13:02

      I think the problem with 3D is that it is a gimmic, but one that is here to stay. Ive still not seen a 3D film that was better for the 3D ness, Avatar is the perfect example. It was a good film, but no more than that, elevated by the phony shine of 3D. It irritated my nose to wear the spex for that ling and actually detracted from the story. I would much rather see greater effort put into improving character rather than dazzling me with something that is only there to stop piracy. What happens when the pirates work out how to copy them?

      Alert a moderator

    • wiggers27

      Mar 9th 2010, 16:36

      i agree 3d is a load of bollox and just gives you head ache. i watched avatar and was not impressed at all, i found the background very blurry and could not wait till it had finished.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular