January 7, 2010

Has the success of Avatar meant doom for a Darren Aronofsky helmed Robocop?

Perhaps, if this story is to be believed. Apparently the powers that be want it to be in 3D, and Aronofsky has been vocal on his distaste for that and preference for more traditional film making techniques. I think this is more or less the divide between trying to make a movie like The Dark Knight and trying to make a movie like Avatar. Both are successful big budget movies made by great directors, but one relies on computers a lot more, and that doesn't seem like Aronofsky's way. It'd be great to still see him tackle this, but who knows if it'll happen. I really just posted this to get a sense of how people feel about the current 3D craze, but comment on this however you like, since I just report the news.
-Which type of movie (Robocop or not) do you prefer?


  1. When I think Aronofsky I do not think Robocop.
    When I think Robocop I do not think Aronofsky.

  2. True enough, but until Batman Begins did you think Christopher Nolan and think Batman? It's just something to think about. I love Aronofsky, but it's more the idea of how movies are approached these days...

  3. Im all for 3D and I think its a really cool, fun innovative way to bring people back to the cinema.
    But this is a problem. When it causes potentially awesome projects (I for one think Aronofsky would make a killer Robocop)to die then it sucks. #D simply needs to be a branch of film--it doesn't need to try to take over the entire industry, because it will fail and a bunch of really awesome films will die in the process.

  4. Aronofsky should be allowed to do his thing, because noone does it like him.

    Same with others. Heres what I think: If 3D is the future, then it will come soon enough. No need to push it. It should be a directors choice if he want to make a 3D, a 2D, an animated or even a black/white movie.

    The studios should be patient, also because the technology to make these movies is expensive, and it's no garanty of succes.

    But alas, i suspect we will se alot of really, really bad 3D movies in the near future.

  5. In the future I imagine the studio's will make it clear whether or not they intend to use 3D on a film before coming to a deal with a director. As for projects already in any stage of production, I think the studios should allow the directors to continue with what they intended before the success of Avatar. If they want to try to persuade a director towards using 3D fine. But they hired a person who they thought had the correct vision for the film, why fire them just to add 3D. If they switch directors and end up with a bad 3D film they are really going to lose money.

  6. You're right Joey. But part of me thinks, is this getting brilliant "smaller" character-based film directors to do big budget action films going to get tedious? I mean it has the potential to become as cliched as American tv dramas casting British actors following the success of Hugh Laurie as House. But if Aronofsky wants to do it, sure, go for it.

  7. I think any project has the potential to succeed wildly or fail miserably, so it all depends on execution...

  8. I understand where you're coming from, Matthew, but there are certain cliches which I think work and cliches which don't work at all. In the case of this "sub-movement", if we can call it that, most of the products that have come out of it have been fantastic so far, at least in my opinion.

    However, I do have quite a few doubts as to whether Aronofsky could really pull off a film like "Robocop".

  9. I'd rather Aronofsky do other things, but I think he would have made an interesting movie...

  10. I am yet to be convinced by 3D. Whilst I haven't seen Avatar yet and therefore, my position might alter slightly, I have yet to see a film where the fact that it was in 3D made it a better film.

    I saw Up in 3D and felt that there was very little benefit from the 3D. Likewise I saw Coraline in 2D and thought it was one of the best films of 2009 and did not feel like I missed anything as a result of watching the 2D version.

    The drive towards 3D at present seems to me to be driven by the following factors:

    1. Harder to pirate;
    2. Quelling the attractiveness of home cinema and dragging people back to the multiplex; and
    3. Money - cinemas can charge more for 3D (they do in the UK anyway) ergo bigger box office and more profit

    Quality of filmmaking and appropriateness of 3D to the material come way down the list.

  11. Good point about piracy, though I thought Up used 3D well since it gave things depth and height...

  12. As far as it becoming a cliche to get more character based directors to take on bigger scale projects, I think studios have finally come to realize that just because a project has amazing visuals doesn't mean audiences don't want some depth. Also, just because these directors have started out on a small scale doesn't mean that they never aspired to take on larger projects, they are just now able to secure the funding for such projects. I think many cliches are actually being taken down because of this trend, as blockbusters are being recognized as awards worthy material and people are realizing that the story can be just as compelling as the visual aspect of these films.