3D or no 3D? 'Harry Potter, Part 2' aims for it, but is that a mistake?
Work to convert 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1' to 3D was abandoned, but the studio is hoping to pull it off for 'Part 2.' Not everyone is sure a costly 3D conversion is the way to go.
In “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1,” the tale of a trio of young wizards in pursuit of the evil Lord Voldemort hauled in some $330 million from around the world on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.Skip to next paragraph
In Pictures Harry Potter fan frenzy
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
This whopping box-office take puts the overall series on track to be the most lucrative film franchise in movie history, says Paul Dergarabedian, Hollywood.com box office expert. With the tallies from this weekend, "the franchise has already hit the $5.7 billion mark globally,” he says, which trumps both the "Star Wars" series and the "James Bond" movies, even adjusting for inflation.
Fans and film buffs are quick to note that the movie is likely to make history without the benefit of 3D.
After “Avatar,” another record-breaking film that swept through movie theaters earlier this year, the technology seemed poised to take over all of filmmaking. Warner Bros. did try to push out "Deathly Hallows" in every conceivable format – from 2D to 3D to Imax. But back in October the studio retrenched on the 3D effort, explaining that to meet the Nov. 19 release date, all work to convert Part 1 to 3D was being dropped.
“Despite everyone’s best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality,” the studio said in a press release. “We do not want to disappoint fans who have long anticipated the conclusion of this extraordinary journey.”
Both parts of "Deathly Hallows," the concluding film of the series, were shot in June, so the studio hopes to have time to finish the 3D live-action conversion process in time for the July 15 release of Part 2.
But the question arises: With boffo box office nearly a guarantee for the final film – and the growing rumblings of fans who say they do not want or need 3D to enjoy "Harry Potter" – is this really the way to go?