Independence Day 2

[bluetops]

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/independ...3-titles/286052

 

 

In an interview with German movie website Filmstarts, Emmerich said that he and co-writer Dean Devlin now have the "right idea" to follow up their 1996 blockbuster, but face the "tough battle" of reuniting its high-profile cast. The original film starred Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Randy Quaid and Vivica Fox.

 

Helmed by Emmerich and written by the director with Devlin, the original Independence Day focused on a last-ditch effort to thwart an alien invasion taking place on July 4, the day of America's annual Independence Day holiday. It grossed more than $816 million (£520 million) at the worldwide box office in 1996 - at the time, the second-highest total of all time.

 

Both Emmerich and Devlin have been trying to devise a sequel for over a decade. However, speaking in July (2012), Devlin revealed that he and the director are finally on the same page. He said at the time: "I can't say that it's going to happen, but I can say that for the first time in 11 years, Roland Emmerich and I are working together."

 

Meanwhile, the original Independence Day is to return to cinemas in 3D form next year (2013). During his interview with Filmstarts, Emmerich revealed that his planned sequels would also be released in 3D. However, because the director is unhappy with the current standard of 3D cameras, he would shoot the films in 2D before converting them later.

 

 

I enjoyed the first and maybe I'll see this one.

[darthYENIK]

Horrible idea. But this is Roland Emmerich we're talking about, he's just a notch above Uwe Boll at this point.

[Otter]

 

Meanwhile, the original Independence Day is to return to cinemas in 3D form next year (2013). During his interview with Filmstarts, Emmerich revealed that his planned sequels would also be released in 3D. However, because the director is unhappy with the current standard of 3D cameras, he would shoot the films in 2D before converting them later.

 

 

....jesus, I'm dying of laughter over here.

[Celestail]

 

....jesus, I'm dying of laughter over here.

Same here... i wonder why...

[darthYENIK]

Most film crews don't know how to use 3D cameras, and even when they do it takes extra time to set up, sometimes hours. And for some the result isn't worth it. Joss Whedon tried to film the Avengers in 3D (as in using 3D cameras) but gave up after seeing how well a 2D to 3D conversion looked compared to something actually shot with a 3D camera.

[Otter]

I'm not so sure that Whedon wanted to shoot 3D... but regardless. That's Whedon, and whether or not the 3D conversion worked is debatable (hint: it didn't) - but Roland Emmerich being "unhappy with the current state" of 3D cameras is like saying The Asylum is unhappy with the current state of hollywood acting talent.

 

It's, as you said, a more difficult and expensive shooting environment - and that's the challenge. Not that the technology doesn't meet the high standards of the man who brought us 10,000 BC and Inspector Gadget vs A Giant Lady Lizard.

 

2D to 3D conversions look cheap and sh*tty. They're not shot to exploit the 3rd dimension and, even if they are, it's like reading a popup book. In poor lighting.

 

What this sentiment sounds like, to me, is more like this - a filmmaker who doesn't want to work in 3D (for whatever reason, really) is being forced to tow the company line and praise the 3D post effects to justify the extra ticket price.

 

Which, yeah, I know, is business as usual. It's just offensive when it's played off as a problem with the technology. Come on. Avatar popped our cherry. We know what can be done now. Imitations are cheap and flimsy. So if you're going to force us into a dark room to wear uncomfortable glasses and stare at a dimly lit screen... at least be honest with us.

[darthYENIK]

I get what you're saying. I think the problem is that most filmmakers see 3D as a gimmick, where as James Cameron is really into it. So that majority are going to try and get out of doing it when the studios are forcing it down their throat, so they can just shoot the movie the way they know and want to. But Cameron has a passion for it, and like 3D CGI, will push the tech, and do it with quality.

 

As for if the 3D conversion works, I don't know, I haven't seen a 3D movie since "Meet the Robinsons" about 5 years ago, and that was animated. I was just restating what I heard from Whedon on the Avengers audio commentary.

 

In any case, I still think ID4 2, is a bad idea. At least in that he wants the cast from the first movie to reprise their roles. I think it'd be better to have a new cast, and base the movie in another part of the world. The most interesting part of that movie, in terms of a possible sequel was when someone (Robert Loggia, I think) says, "we know how to take them down, now spread the word." And it shows various shots from location around the world with the alien ships crashing to earth. That always caught my imagination.