Yep, Titanic 3D is set to hit our screens in April, and we couldn’t be more violently ambivalent. For those of you who always felt there was a dimension missing that wasn’t just ‘being historically accurate’, your ship has come in. But we wouldn’t board it, if we were you. BOAT PUNS AHOY! THAT’S LITERALLY ANOTHER ONE! Anyway, here’s a poster, go mad:

So it looks like it sinks then. The more eagle-eyed among you may have spotted that it looks an awful lot like the other poster released recently, and to those people we say – yes. Yes it does. But how much effort exactly are you expecting from a money-spinning re-release?

Anyway, we’re all sure it will look very nice and big and pointy and tragic. We’re pretty excited, can you tell?

It’s pretty late in the day to be announcing a 3D switcharound (it’s supposed to hit our screens in April), but does at least give the Marvel team time to ensure that it’s done properly. And by properly, we mean desperately unnecessarily. The thing is, a lot of people are going to go and see The Avengers. Hell, we’ve essentially been building up to it ever since Iron Man got a release back in 2008. Since then we’ve had character instalments from The Hulk, Thor, Captain America – not to mention another look-in from Iron Man – so there is certainly money money money to be made. And why not take the opportunity to add on an extra few quid to the ticket price, if they can? Apart from because it’s morally bancrupt, we mean? Well exactly.

Are you looking forward to The Avengers in all their multi-dimensional glory? Sigh. We’re sick of writing about crap 3D….

Take a look – it really is brilliant.

Could it BE MORE ALIEN-y? The music, the titles, the ever-growing sense of oxygen-free dread – Scott can deny the links to his most famous franchise all he likes, but there are no ignoring the delicious similarities. Purposefully avoiding any plot outline (which maybe might come in a later trailer, maybe not), instead what we have here is a action-packed minute of glorious atmosphere-building, topped off with tiny glimpses of very famous faces (Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Roomi Rapace, Idris Elba – we’ll stop now before we get all dribbly).

So will actually there be any extraterrestrials present? Scott seems determined not to give away the subject of all this ominous gambit-laying, and to be honest, we prefer it that way. Though we reckon there probably will be extraterrestrials present. You know what we’re not so pleased about? The invariable bloody 3D tag (yep, it’s there right at the end of the credits shot). You’re better than this 3D nonsense, Ridley. You know you are.

A truly marvellous week of trailers. Shall we celebrate by watching Sigourney Weaver make that shot in one take? Yeah, let’s do that.

Alright, fine, technically that’s not a Ridley Scott film. But it’s still pretty bad-ass.

J J Abrams has confirmed that although Star Trek 2 will not be shooting in 3D (a la Avatar, or indeed ANY 3D film that looks even remotely worthwhile), it will be doing a conversion to 3D in post-production (a la Harry Potter. Or Clash Of The Titans). Which basically means that they don’t want to do the extra work on-set, but they do want the additional ticket price hike. Bah. Abrams had this to say “We’ll do a good high-end conversion. It’ll be like the Harry Potter movie and all that. Luckily we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good.” No. No it doesn’t.

2009′s Star Trek (in MIND-NORMALISING 2D) was a monster hit, pleasing die-hard fans and newbies to the franchise alike, and we’re eager to see what Abrams can do with a sequel. But 3D? Why? It’s not like his original was filmed with 3D in mind, and it’s been proved time and again that if your visuals are bang on, 3D is totally unnecessary. We hate to get all fan-boy about it (we totally don’t), but if stunning 2D is good enough for Nolan, it’s good enough for us.

What do you make of this multi-dimension revelation? Complain or buck up our ideas below…

Speaking at the BIFAs, the King’s Speech director told the BBC that his choice was mainly practical, stating that “some people will physically struggle with [3D]. If you have a certain type of eyesight it can be more demanding than watching a normal movie.” He also repeated what annoying, jumped-up internet bloggers like us have been saying for months – that the story is strong enough that it doesn’t warrant the need of a 3D draw. Also, it means it will be cheaper for us, the lowly pundits. Vive la révolution!

This is the best news we’ve heard since that day we pretended he hadn’t cast Anne Hathaway as Fantine. Roll on Dec 2012!

According to Hugh Jackman (who’ll be playing the lead role of Jean Valjean), Hooper wants to explore how shooting in 3D can enhance character and emotion. Even though it obviously can’t. There are plenty of action sequences in Les Mis, and we’d be willing to concede that a good 3D flag-waving may – possibly – liven up a barricade fight, but will Russell Crowe’s craggy face seem all the more ACTING-FILLED if his emotions are in three dimensions? We’re suspicious. But it’s important to remember that The King’s Speech didn’t seem to suffer at the hands of two simple dimensions, so let’s not assume that the director will shoot in 3D just for the sake of it. For now, anyway.

Stay tuned, and let us know which song would most benefit from EMOTION-POPPING 3D (3D chairs at 3D tables?)

And for better or for worse, it’s definitely the addition of 3D that has got audiences going back. If you recall, our favourite jungle pals got a brief IMAX re-release in 2002, but the endeavour only raked in a meagre $15 million in total. Add in the possibility of wildebeest ALL UP IN YOUR FACE, and suddenly people begin stampeding towards their local cinema. There’s no arguing with the resonance of the tale, and there’s certainly no harm in introducing a new generation of kids to it, but the triumph at the box-office has to be more than a little to do with the beefed up 3D ticket prices…

Simba et al will be hitting our screens on the 7th October. Will you be going?

These were the comments of a recent interview given by Jean-Luc Godard to promote his latest offering, Film Socialisme. Now, Godard is one of those characters who is deliberately and often provocative, both in his work and his public persona, so it’s hard to know how to take this statement. Perhaps it was just a way to drum up publicity given the comparatively small release given to his film, or perhaps he truly is lamenting what he sees as the demise of cinema.

The “we” to which Godard refers is the Nouvelle Vague, a group of young, ambitious cinephile-directors which included Francois Truffaut, Alan Resnais and Agnes Varda. The Nouvelle Vague believed in the auteur theory that lauded the director as the sole creative vision behind a film, and introduced the concept of the “camera-stylo”, or ‘camera pen’, to the cinematic vocabulary. For the first time this group of directors brought film out of the studios and into the streets, the influence of which can be directly seen in the New Hollywood films of the 1960s and 1970s, such as Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid or Bonnie & Clyde, which Godard was initially mooted to direct.

I spoke to Dr. Sarah Cooper, head of the Film Studies department at King’s College London and specialist in French Cinema, who claims Godard’s comment that film is over “could be understood to pertain to the rise of new technologies, particularly the digital, and the expanded possibilities that these create (e.g. ‘filming’ with mobile phones when ‘film’ in the most material sense, i.e. celluloid, is becoming rarer and rarer)”. This theory is given further credence with the recent news that rival film stock companies Technicolor and Deluxe have had to sign sub-contracting deals with each other to stay afloat. Also, despite the fact that the novelty is surely waning, the 3D boom shows no sign of stopping.

All this points to an increasing difficulty in getting films by first time directors made, or at least into the high street cinema chains, whereupon they’ll still face competition from some big budget identikit Hollywood blockbuster about nothing. However, Rebecca O’Brien, producer and long-time collaborator with veteran director Ken Loach, still has faith that “any good film will get made”. When quizzed on whether the increasing amount of illegal downloads and film piracy that’s going on is leading to an increased difficulty in money being put into less commercially viable films, she argued that the reason for internet piracy was that there is an economic flaw in the market, saying that “films are not available at the right time for the right price”.

The model she proposed was very convincing, and certainly not beyond the realm of possibility – a mode of exhibition whereby the film is released on a multi-platform basis, digitally and cinematically, with people given the option to either pay a higher price for the true cinematic experience, or else pay a lower price to download a lower quality movie. Could this be the way of the future for independent films?

Already there are film-makers who are making good use of the internet to help promote themselves and their work, for both independent films and big budget blockbusters. One need only look at the use of viral marketing to amp up the buzz for Super 8 to see how effective it can be when utilised properly. I spoke to Lee Neville, director and star of Time Stops Moving and the sequel Time Always Moving (a review of which you’ll be able to read next week) about his use of the internet. Neville, in an attempt to get noticed by studio production companies, makes and stars in no-budget short films for internet distribution.

“It’s essentially creating your own showreel.” He said, “And being that they are my films I get to give myself a leading role. Last year I presented four short films online and though they were zero budget and low tech, I don’t think this is why the views weren’t amazingly high. There was no way any of my short films would compete with the clip of the jumping cat… The exception to the case was a short film called Time Stops Moving which got the attention of a US casting director and had a few thousand views. Inspired by this I chose to create the sequel Time Always Moving.”

Neville also mentioned the festival circuit as being integral in showcasing what you have to offer, and thankfully this seems healthy enough to still have a great effect on the success of indie films. Take Treacle Jr., Jamie Thraves’ follow up to 2000’s critically acclaimed The Low-Down, and probably my favourite film to have come out this year. Shot on a micro budget, it is the kind of film that would inspire any would-be filmmaker to pick up a DSLR and go make a movie. The film acquired a minor distribution deal from the New British Cinema Quarterly after being shown at the London Film Festival, and then winning the Hitchcock D’or at the Dinard Film Festival (Notable previous winners include Shallow Grave, The Full Monty and Dead Man’s Shoes).

Thraves spent no money on advertising its limited, week long release in selected Picturehouses and still managed to attract around 300 viewers; all the more impressive considering it was competing against Bridesmaids, The Tree of Life and the latest in the Harry Potter franchise. It may not sound a lot, but word of mouth is a powerful thing, and hopefully this will mean that when Treacle Jr. comes back to London in August, playing at the Shortwave Cinema in Bermondsey Square, and then for a week at The Ritzy, its audience numbers will increase.

In fact, the tour Treacle Jr. is going on, again organised by the NBCQ, calls to mind a similar exhibition practice used recently by Kevin Smith. Instead of spending big bucks on pushing his latest film, Red State, Smith decided instead to distribute it and market it himself, taking it on a tour around the USA. By spending nothing on advertising, the film has already recouped its relatively small budget, and hopefully the same thing will happen with Treacle Jr. (Thraves did remortgage his house to fund the project!).

It’s this kind of creative, anarchic thinking being employed by Thraves, Smith, Neville and many others – the kind that made the French New Wave so influential – that needs to exist if independent cinema is to survive and flourish. See, people are exploring cinema, but more often than not they just exist slightly below the radar, biding their time, making low budget films and waiting for their audience find them; half the battle is getting people to realise that there are new films out there beyond what’s on in the West End. Cinema is in a transitional period at the moment, but once it is through then hopefully the landscape will be healthier for studios and independents alike.

This year’s biggest releases read like a carbon copy check-list of every year thus far this decade. We have a wealth of superhero movies, a run of vampire films and an array of sex-comedies, each treading on the toes of whatever came before. On top of the genre staples there are also the usual regurgitations (who exactly was calling out for another Arthur film?), the ongoing search for a new Harry Potter (anyone ever remember I Am Number 4? No, I thought not) and the typical onslaught of sequels, prequels and English language adaptations (for which, if Wikipedia is to be believed, this is a record year). What follows is a trend by trend analysis of the creativity-zapping paths of least resistances characterising Hollywood today.

Part II: The Squeakquel

Cinematic sequels are hardly a recent phenomenon, dating back as they do to 1916′s Fall of a Nation, but with 27 sequels set to début this year alone (some constituting the fifth or even eighth instalment) they have become depressingly ubiquitous. While the tendency towards sequels can sometimes have little detriment on film quality – along with the often cited Godfather 2 and Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, there are a great many other sequels of worth – the law of diminishing returns has claimed a great many more franchises than it has spared.

The problem is not only the lack of ideas by episode sixteen (I for one rather enjoyed Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Fast Five and Scream 4), but the fact that sequels are often greenlit for their own sake as opposed to being the consequence of an ongoing saga in need of additional instalments to best tell its tale. As such we have seven Saw movies, ten Star Trek movies (pre-reboot) and a Land Before Time series that has lasted almost as long as the dinosaurs themselves. Nobody was begging for a second Cars movie, a Planet of the Apes prequel or a fifth Final Destination. As for Hoodwinked II: Hood vs. Evil – there was a Hoodwinked I??

Retcons, remakes and reimaginings

Although many sequels are undoubtedly commissioned to capitalise on the fiscal benefits of our essential laziness and brand loyalty, at some point the costs of constantly ramping up the excitement/action/breasts will outweigh the benefits. Luckily, there still remains an attractive alternative to dreaming up new ideas: the reboot. I understand why it happens – hell, I can even quote a couple of worthwhile films which were themselves reboots – but that doesn’t help curb the suspicion that this is one of the most dangerous avenues of moviemaking.

Rather than simply recasting the roles and renewing their focus on character and plot, many studios are instead deciding to start from scratch, effectively scrapping everything that came before and making a mockery of any time, money and fanboyism wasted in that particular world. While this is true of just about every horror movie released before the turn of the century (and many after), it is particularly common for superheroes to drop everything in a hurry to return to square one. The Hulk will have effectively started over three times by the release of The Avengers, The Punisher has already managed his hat-trick, while Spider-man barely lasted five years before being unceremoniously rebooted. Surely it would make more sense to follow James Bond, Doctor Who and 90s Batman‘s example, continuing the narrative regardless of cast and crew changes?

Adapt or die

It is not just existing films which prove an irresistible counter to originality in the Hollywood hills, as literally anything can form the basis for a box-office busting cinema franchise, with novels, games and even boardgames and theme park rides offering inspiration for willing film studios. As Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer, Nicholas Sparks and the Brothers Grimm find themselves relentlessly tapped for stories (of varying quality…), JK Rowling and J R Tolkein have unwittingly spawned two of the most lucrative and influential film franchises in history.

As such we have an onslaught of doppelgängers invading cinemas as rival studios abuse the Polyjuice potion in search of a hit. Over recent years a number of grandiose sword and sandal epics have trudged through auditoriums in search of an heir to these literary thrones, because let’s face it: what audiences really need is another vampire movie. Novelists have aptly risen to the challenge too, as The Golden Compass, Eragon, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Cirque du Freak: The Vampire Assistant, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief and the aforementioned I Am Number Four duly auction themselves off to the highest bidder.

Eye-popping, wallet-emptying 3D

As a recovering 3D apologist, I diligently dropped my jaw at Avatar and championed Thor 3D over Thor 2D. Over the past couple of months, however, I have found it increasingly difficult to defend the medium following a slew of sub-par conversion jobs which suffered the 30% colour loss caused by the tinted glasses without benefiting from the visual splendour the effect makes possible. Following the success of Avatar – and the genuine majesty of films such as DreamWorks’ How to Train Your Dragon – many studios made the mistake of pinning the responsibility on 3D alone.

The last few years have played host to films such as The Final Destination, The Last Airbender, Clash of the Titans, Cats and Dogs 2: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, The Green Hornet, Green Lantern, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (not a comment on the latter film’s quality), each poorly converted into 3D during post production. Even films filmed in the medium are often sequels, the previous instalments hardly calling for an extra dimensional make-over.

The witless comedy

I understand that it’s about time the romantic comedy is modified to appeal to both sides of the gender divide, but of late the longstanding tradition of wit and even jokes have been unceremoniously relegated to the realm of science fiction and fantasy. Where the comedy genre was once home to the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Leslie Nielsen, Jim Carrey, Hugh Grant and the Monty Python team, modern comedy can generally be divided into three, equally uninspiring camps: the Judd Apatow bromance, the sex comedy and the Spoof Comedy Movie.

I have never been a particularly enthusiastic comedy buff, but lately I have been even less tempted to watch the genre’s latest offerings. Either Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Jack Black, Zach Galifianakis or Will Ferrell (or now Melissa McCarthy) will greet me with some quirkily random slab of nonsense, a former That 70s Show star will land a fuck-buddy or one member of the Wayan family will try (and fail) to lampoon everything that moves.

Darker is better

It is this fad above all others which has become the bane of my life, often appearing as it does in tandem with the inevitable reboot. The last few years have been plagued with announcements of long-running franchises facing reincarnation as part of a relentless drive to rob cinemas of anything light and fluffy. Arguably started by the Nolanisation of Batman, this trend has devoured just about every superhero franchise going: Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Hulk have each fallen victim to the disdain shown towards anything that doesn’t growl or lurk in the shadows.

It’s also worth noting that this is pushing the boundaries of the 12A rating beyond breaking point. Whether it is The Dark Knight‘s pathalogical moral paradigms or Harry Potter’s suffering at the hands of Voldemort, it’s increasingly difficult to work out what differentiates the lower certificates, opening more and more productions up to the limited attention spans of the younger generation. Aside from this, there is a relative dearth in variety when it comes to your superhero affiliations. Only Marvel seem to be above the rampant pursuit of realism (Green Lantern probably did more harm than good) – their lighthearted and unashamedly fun approach to characters such as Iron Man, Thor and Captain America do at least allow the heroes to laugh as often as they growl broodily from the shadows.

While there will always be alternatives to such general dross on show, at your local independent cinema or film festival, there is no reason for studios to play to the lowest common denominator with such careless abandon. Why should we be forced to live in a world where Amanda Seyfried spends her life sending or receiving letters, Jack Black plays Jack Black and Batman Begins Again Because We’ve Run Out Of Ideas 2 3D?

What pisses you off most about modern cinema? Vent your spleen below!

Disney have apparently been planning to cash in on the 3D craze for a while now (cos you know how Disney are struggling, right?) and though rumours at first abounded that Beauty And The Beast would be the first to be sent to the 3D gas chambers (I’m not even sorry), it looks like The Lion King has ended up being at the front of the line. Do you want to see the new trailer those money pinching bastards have made to showcase it? Do you? We know, us neither, but at least they can’t force 3D into our computer screens (YET)

“Breath-taking 3D”. Breath-taking is right. Prepare yourselves, oh fat cats of Hollywood, prepare for a back-lash the like of which you’ve never known. I propose a pact: the second we don those 3D glasses and hear the beautiful opening of “MAAAAAAASAAAVENNNJAAAAA”, we shall all hang ourselves with rolls of the 1994 original film footage. It’s literally the only thing left that we can try.

This will be happening late October of this year. Same time as the new (and improved) Rapture. Coincidence? We think not.