This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Get out! Get out!! GET OUT!!!"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 26 November 2014




Tweet







February 25 2011

Fran Kranz says Cabin In The Woods to be released. Does exactly what it says on the tin.

Of course, so did Chris the other day, and it could all just be a game of telephone due to the supposed MGM/Sony deal, no?
bix has said something logical but I think I'm going to ignore it in favor of unbridled optimism.

I can't believe it's coming out next week hooray!
Heh, that's mobile Twitter gossi. Here's the normal link.

Did I mention Yay?!
Exciting, but I don't think anyone was really under any doubt that it would be released, in some form or other. It seems slightly silly to just sit on a film that is in the can, particular as just sticking "from the maker of Cloverfield and Buffy the Vampire Slayer" on some adverts is likely to draw quite a few people.

Whether it will be in all multiplexes around the world or just in a bargain DVD bucket is another matter.
If an actor in it has heard it may get released, it's a positive sign.
Indeed! Now all we need is a release date. A real one this time.
Dear Fran: Please forgive me if "I hear" doesn't inspire the GREATEST CONFIDENCE in me. I love you anyway, Tonya.
Maybe, gossi, but only if he's hearing it in some sort of official capacity, not as a result of "if this Sony deal happens they'd be in charge of releasing it at some point", which is what we already know.
It depends who he hears it from of course but it's at least not bad news, at worst it's just not actually news at all. Cross 'em if you got 'em.

(though since MGM became liquid again i've assumed it's only a matter of time anyway, as Vandelay says, it's made and ready to go, that has to be faster money than stuff that's still in development, provided they can release it fairly cheaply)
New MGM has done some crazy co-production deals on movies that will be released many years in the future in order to get an influx of cash now. That cash will pay salaries and overhead while making new movies but, supposedly will also be spent on the serious dollars it takes to market and release CiTW, Red Dawn and whatever else is on the shelf.
As with several other people here, I shall be forsaking logic and reason for a frankly overzealous display of optimism.

I really hope it isn't in 3-D. But even so, I'd be happy just to have it.
If it's in 3D it'll very, very likely be in 2D as well (anyone seen a 3D film yet that wasn't ?). But anyway, pretty sure it's not in 3D (MGM went pop before the conversion happened).
The 3D conversion never happened. And still the last thing I saw publicly was that Cabin would be in the hands of Sony for release, if the presumptive MGM/Sony deal ever actually happens. There's nothing in the press yet indicating such a deal happened.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-26 00:39 ]
Mary Parent has joined Paramount for development (she produced Cabin In The Woods for MGM and Serenity for Universal). MGM and Paramount have a co-financing deal. Make of that what you will.
Fran:
i have no idea when cabin will be released but read that it and red dawn will be by sony. no when but better than before
So it's presumably what we've already read, re: the still not actually announced/finalized deal.
@Vandelay It's rare, but it has happened. It's actually kind of sickening to think about.

@Saje It's not so much that something is released ONLY in 3D, but sometimes it's very, very hard to find something in 2D if it's released in both "formats". I have friends who were forced to pay for a 3D screening because either the 2D screening was sold out, or that particular theater wasn't offering said film in 2D.

Glad to hear Cabin won't be in 3D. It will most likely be more cost effective and make more economic sense to release Cabin straight to DVD/iTunes/VOD. Personally, I'd like to see a sort of Paranormal Activity, word-of-mouth theatrical roll-out.
I have friends who were forced to pay for a 3D screening because either the 2D screening was sold out, or that particular theater wasn't offering said film in 2D.

Fair comment kungfubear, i'm slightly spoiled by living near a city and so having access to 2 multiplexes and 2 arthouse cinemas. That said, best will to your friends but a screen being sold out doesn't mean you have to watch it in 3D, you can always come back another time and though more awkward (and I accept, for some folk basically impracticable, depending on transport, babysitters etc.) the same applies to travelling to different cinemas to see it (it just depends how keen you are to see it in 2D). I'd submit in fact that 2D screens are still much more common, particularly in places with smaller cinemas.

The choice is there in other words, as soon as it isn't i'll more easily understand the complaints about 3D releases.
I don't hate 3-d, but I wish they'd create clip on glasses for those of us who already wear glasses. Too much money I suppose, but I look like a goof and tend to get really wierd vision when I wear those things.
That's a complaint I have sympathy with cos although I don't wear glasses myself, friends that do have mentioned it being a problem. If it actually becomes a mainstay of the routine cinema experience i'd imagine prescription 3D glasses will become more widely available (a few companies were already working on them towards the end of last year) though whether it'll be worth the cost is obviously down to each individual.
I don't hate 3-d, but I wish they'd create clip on glasses for those of us who already wear glasses. Too much money I suppose, but I look like a goof and tend to get really wierd vision when I wear those things.

Amen to that, azzers...I saw both the Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland and Avatar in 3D theatres and I ended up with headaches both times. Clip-on 3D lenses would be much better, especially since my frames are rather wide-body (got a big head, natch :D) and those visor goggles don't fit right.

And to tie things back to the original topic, I don't see why CITW needs to be 3D. Some of the scariest films I've seen were 2D and better for it. Joss & Co. did 7(*) seasons of Buffy in 2D and true horrors were psychological.

* = S1 is really only half a season, but...meh ;)
I don't see why CITW needs to be 3D.

It doesn't. But MGM looked around and saw every other horror film under the sun releasing in 3D and thought they'd be screwed without it.

FWIW, setting aside the studio, the filmmakers apparently were less than pleased with the 3D conversion tests they ran.

[ edited by The One True b!X on 2011-02-26 19:22 ]
I don't give much of a monkey if it gets converted to 3D (and it still might). I'll just book a 2D showing at my cinema.
Yeah, me too also. Haven't yet seen a converted film that benefited from it (and often they suffer - quick action across the field of view in particular often just blurs into an incoherent mess for me).

If it's not shot for 3D there's no point converting it IMO.
I disagree. But just because I feel inclined towards being contrarian at the moment.
3D clip-ons are available to buy but you have to get versions of every type of 3D. They're pretty cheap (and presumably flimsy) on Amazon but you can find studier, more expensive ones elsewhere. Then the real question becomes - do you get a discount on that $3+ ticket surcharge?
gossi, 'fraid I'll have to agree with b!X on this one, MGM is still floating in the wind here.

However, I can say that I hate this 3D craze!
See, the "hating the craze" thing is what I just don't get. If you don't like it then don't watch in 3D (as I say above, after seeing several i've decided that converted films just aren't worth the candle so I don't bother with them, I only watch films shot for 3D in 3D now. Easy peasy).

I disagree. But just because I feel inclined towards being contrarian at the moment.

I disagree too ! Because I agree about being contrary.

Then the real question becomes - do you get a discount on that $3+ ticket surcharge?

You do over here at least, if you bring your own glasses they charge you about a pound less (which is great because it adds another potential frustration to 3D - the annoyance of having about 3 pairs sitting at home, all of which you forgot to bring with you ;).

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home