"I cannot emphasize this enough, do not pay out for the 3-D, as it simply isn’t there." So insists Duncan Bowles, of Den of Geek, in his consideration of Clash of the Titans, subjected to a quickie 3-D conversion before its release in order for the studio to make extra bucks on the surcharge for 3-D tickets. (The premium on a 3-D ducat is three to five dollars over a standard admission.) As Bowles says, "The director didn’t even want it apparently, but lo and behold Clash Of The Titans was retro-fitted to turn a fast buck and the result is shocking. Please, please if you go and see Clash of the Titans, watch it in 2-D before this whole mess gets out of hand.... I have never been so insulted by such a criminal intent to rob the public, so to any studio who attempt to cash in on the success of other, better films with this technique: don't."
I've been away on vacation, so I haven't yet caught up with Clash, the remake of the delightfully cheesy 1981 film from director Desmond Davis and special-effects wizard Ray Harryhausen. Instinctively, I agree with Bowles. That's because when I saw Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, which I liked and which was likewise the product of a belated 3-D conversion that might have added dollars to the studio coffers but not to the viewer experience, I worried that distributors were bilking consumers out of money they didn't need to spend. Alice was fine in 2-D. 3-D glasses only made its colors darker and created an effect more suggestive of a pop-upcard rather than of deep space. Of Clash, fellow film critic Ken Turan of the Los Angeles Times opined that it might be "the first movie to be made worse by 3-D."
It's worth paying extra for the 3-D ticket when a movie was conceived and shot in that format, as with Avatar and Up! Why pay champagne prices for sparkling wine? Your thoughts? Are you a fan of 3-D?