Given that he directed one of the most successful French films of all time, in the shape of 2001's still-delightful "Amelie," it's surprising that director Jean-Pierre Jeunet hasn't worked in Hollywood more. But then again, given that his only English-language picture to date was the woeful "Alien: Resurrection," perhaps it's not so surprising after all. Hollywood has come calling, of course: the director was courted to make films including "Life of Pi," "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" and "Mirror Mirror," but he's generally preferred to march to the beat of his own drum, with two French-language pictures in the last decade, the underrated "A Very Long Engagement," and the slight, but enjoyable, "MicMacs."
But finally, Jeunet is about to cross the Atlantic again: since last year, he's been working on a second-English language feature, a 3D adaptation of Reif Larsen's cult 2009 novel "The Selected Works Of T.S. Spivet." The film's now gearing up to get before cameras at the end of next month, with a new title, "The Young and Prodigious Spivet" (watch that change again, "Hugo"-style), and it looks like he's locked down his principal cast, with Variety reporting that Helena Bonham-Carter, Kathy Bates and Canadian character actor Callum Keith Rennie ("Memento") have all signed on to the project.
The plot seems like a good fit for the director: it revolves around a 12-year-old cartography enthusiast in an eccentric family, who travels across country hidden on board a freight train after being invited to the Smithsonian Institute. Young actor Kyle Catlett has been cast in the title role, while Rennie will play his father; there's no word at the moment as to who Bonham-Carter or Bates might be playing. Are there any fans of the novel out there who might take a guess?
Jeunet's bringing along many of his key collaborators from "Amelie" and beyond, including screenwriter Guillaume Laurant, while Demetri Portelli, who was behind the 3D for "Hugo," will act as stereographer. It might sound like a piece of whimsy, but Jeunet say it's actually fairly grounded, telling the trade that "it's a very touching story," albeit one with heavy VFX elements. Filming gets underway in Alberta, Canada, on June 30th, and an October 2013 delivery date is currently being targeted.
That is really interesting. If it's worth their while to delay that long and convert, after spending all the money thusfar marketing, then it says something about the lucrativeness of 3D.
I first approached this news with cynicism, thinking it would never work in 3D, but then I saw a trailer- a lot of the shots look like they'd benefit from 3D.
Sadly, it's not native, and doubly sad is that it's just a GI Joe movie, so I'm not interested.
IMO, after watching JOHN CARTER & BATTLESHIP bomb at the BO, Paramount has little faith their G.I. JOE will do much better, so why not invest the $5 million for a 2D - 3D conversion and release it in March 2013 when few big action movies get released.
There's a lot of speculation out there right now as to why G.I.Joe: Retaliation was pushed back nearly a year. While Paramount execs are touting the financial boost of 3D, some film critics are insinuating that the move may have ulterior motives. Regardless, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has confirmed that they will actually be shooting new scenes for 3D rather than opting for a simple post film, 3D conversion. Also, there are reports that Paramount is using the additional time to actively pursue Joseph Gordon-Levitt to return as Cobra Commander. With The Dark Knight Rises and Looper set to release later this year, JGL's profile will surely be front and center to the movie-going populace.
Twitter: Dwayne Johnson @TheRock
It will be. Designing new scenes to enhance 3D. RT: @JimmyinGA: Was looking forward to GI Joe next month. Hope the 3D is worth the wait.
Not 100% sure if it will be 3D or not (though I assume it will be) - Pixar will be releasing "Planes" next summer. It is done by the same guys who made "Cars". I saw a teaser trailer for it on the 3DBR of "Toy Story 1" - the teaser trailer was in 3D hence the reason I'm assuming the whole movie will be in 3D. What I saw looked pretty cool - it was set on a navy aircraft carrier.
This really surprised me. The movie is being shot with arri alexa cameras, so I figured they were shooting in 3D. The YouTube 3D trailer looks pretty good too and uses lots of negative parallax. It had me fooled until I watched it in slomo after reading Collider's article.
Yeah, looked pretty good to me too. Proof that sometimes I can be overly negative on conversions in the pre-release stages. Although with Gravity, that is an exception for some reason. Cuaron and Lubezki's visual chemistry for Children of Men seems very well suited for trailblazing the 3D drama genre. Most conversions however are done in the style of "We won't change our very flat 2D cinematographic style for 3D, we won't allow it to compromise our direction! But we WILL convert it in post and give you gimmick popout moments and make $3 more per ticket!."
Anyway, I forgot that since that was just a summary article of their set visit, the actual interview is on another page:
Is the film being shot in 3D or is it post converted?
Bekmambetov: We are shooting in 2D with—we made a lot of experiments and we understood how to do it. If you plan ahead, if you know what you’re doing then it even helps you to create the convergency. We’re using convergency not as a technical—not as a technique just to create 3D movies, but as a film language element because with the—when you are doing it in post you can change the world. You can use it as a tool to break the rules of the world.
Lemley: It’s not an afterthought. It’s not.
Bekmambetov: Like this can be in 3D. It can be far behind and be huge. You can change the perspective like in an ancient—icons. It’s a reverse perspective. Everything was closer. It was smaller, further away. It’s big. You can play with the reality and the 3D is a tool to play with it.
I’ve seen a lot of close convergence recently where the studio spent a lot of money on the action sequences and they’re all beautiful in 3D, but all the dialogue scenes are in 2D. You can take your glasses off. Will this have 3D dialogue scenes through the whole movie or you guys post converting specific stuff?
Bekmambetov: It will be converted. Everything will be 3D, but you understand right because there is no reason to—there is no reason to do 3D convergency for dialogue scenes because when you are fighting the distance means a lot. When you are in dialogue you have to think about it because if we’re talking, and I’m closer, it’s one—you have to use it as a film language element, the space. Then it has a sense. If it’s just because you have the 3D cameras and you have to shoot 3D and there is no—and you’re using still the same composition then it’s meaningless and then you can reduce. You can—my answer is simple. Nobody knows the language here. This language is still in development, the film language, 3D movie and the dialogue is the biggest—the traditional dialogues is the biggest problem because nobody knows yet how to interpret it in 3D world and we are in the process too. We’ll see.
Sounds like he wanted more editorial control over the blocking, as is the case with most pro-convert people. My problem with current conversions is that while it gives them precise control of the entire depth budget from near to far elements, I feel not enough time is spent on the believability and roundness of just the primary layer of focus, the foreground. Edited by cakefoo - 6/14/12 at 1:13pm
Thanks for the links. I agree. Sometimes it's tough for me to overcome the bad-conversion stereotype and just enjoy the 3D and the movie instead of searching for depth errors and wondering if this or that should have been dimensionalized more.
Also agree that most 2D-3D directors aren't willing to learn how to shoot good-looking 3D. With 3D cameras and live 3D playback on set, they could at least see how the shot looks in 3D before moving on to the next scene. 2D-3D does allow them to change parallax levels whenever they want, but they could easily make those decisions ahead of time. Usually, it's not worth having to convert everything as making 2.99D for an entire film seems to be feasibly impossible.
Something interesting I saw along this topic, was that S3D movies can change their convergence in post if they shoot at a very high resolution like 5K with Red Epics, so that can't really be considered a 2D-3D advantage. Apparently, Underworld: Awakening did this a lot.
I dispair when I read the interview frankly. Any Director or DOP who thinks dialogue scenes don't need to be in 3D are talking absolute tosh in my opinion. These intimate moments work every bit as well in 3D as action scenes do and their abject failure to understand that just goes to show how little they understand what good 3D is really all about. Not to mention the lack of consistency this switching from 2D dialogue to 3D action imposes on the viewer and the distraction that causes. To me this is a bit like grabbing the viewer by the scruff of the neck and pulling him or her into and out of the movie, depending upon the scene. I HATE this sort of 2.5D thinking where 3D is concerned! Edited by cbcdesign - 6/15/12 at 7:37am
Yeah, it's rare to see a live-action movie with good 3D dialogue scenes, even among movies filmed with 3D cameras. I think the majority of directors are just so used to shooting in 2D that they employ 2D techniques. They fail to understand that over-the-shoulder cams of a zoomed-in face entirely in positive parallax with reduced image separation look bad in 3D. There are better ways to frame dialogue scenes--see Hugo. They've been discovered already. These scenes need strong depth too so the emotions look real on the actors' faces and the audience feels like they are in the room with the characters and connects with what they are saying. Edited by BleedOrange11 - 6/15/12 at 8:23am
These scenes need strong depth too so the emotions look real on the actors' faces and the audience feels like they are in the room with the characters and connects with what they are saying.
Absolutely. In fact I would argue that when watching characters in dialogue scenes in 3D, the tinyest nuances are picked up, small facial movements etc that 2D cannot hope to emphasise in anything like as much detail. This is something some filmakers who venture into 3D need to understand!