Meh, it was a good "once off" type movie.
Milking the cow till she shrivels up is starting to get old.
Time to get some cardio and limber up, because Zombieland 2 is go. Director Ruben Fleischer is set to return, and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wenick were put to work on a script, which little birdies say is pretty damn good.
Via: 'Zombieland 2' Director Giddy About 3-D Zombie Splatter - MTV Movie News| MTVFirst off, Fleischer confirmed he’ll shoot the sequel with 3-D cameras, rather than use a controversial post-production process. “When it comes to 3-D, I feel pretty strongly that you should shoot it in camera,” he said. “I feel like it just looks so much better. If you’re going to make a 3-D movie, go ahead and make a 3-D movie. I would definitely, if we do ‘Zombieland 2,’ make it in 3-D and want to shoot it in 3-D.”
While no stars yet have deals in place, Fleischer said “all the cast is excited to return,” including Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin and Jesse Eisenberg, who also stars in “30 Minutes.” Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are currently at work on the script, and Fleischer said they’re exploring multiple scenarios, from a plot that picks up shortly after the conclusion of the first film to one that begins further into the future. Regardless, though, “Zombieland 2” will likely explore pre-zombie days as well.
Meh, it was a good "once off" type movie.
Milking the cow till she shrivels up is starting to get old.

Every zombie flick needs more Woody and more twinkies. Nuff said.
Tempted to agree with Tanith, but the original really was toadally awesome! So I'd have to risk the sour-milk-experience, as long as they kill off another celeb (please let it be the Wayans idiots)
3-D... will this phase just die already, not every single movie is meant for 3-D ffs.
I LOVED the first one so would be pretty cool to watch another. (only if original cast remains in tact)
This is not post process 3D this is proper 3D using a 3D camera:
"Fleischer confirmed he’ll shoot the sequel with 3-D cameras, rather than use a controversial post-production process. “When it comes to 3-D, I feel pretty strongly that you should shoot it in camera,” he said. “I feel like it just looks so much better. If you’re going to make a 3-D movie, go ahead and make a 3-D movie. I would definitely, if we do ‘Zombieland 2,’ make it in 3-D and want to shoot it in 3-D.”
@ S now that is the best example of a movie that should NOT be done in 3D. That is so far over the line.
Well, I am a self confessed fan of these dance movies, so I look forward to watching it at home and skipping through the sappy story to the dance bits.
For me I am against 3D in general, for certain movies where it works, and it has a place then cool, but not every movie should use it just because it can.
Last edited by Amphiptere; 10-09-2010 at 12:51 PM.
3D is just finding its balance guys - as larch points out, key in the debate these days is actually filming for 3D vs converting 2D to 3D as a post-process. It's inevitable though - 10, 20 years from now everything will be 3D - and hopefully 'true' 3D vs stereoscopy. There is a difference.
I vote for holographic tech in 20 years, where you can "move through" the movie and perhaps even interact. Heh-heh.
On topic, I'm not completely sold on 3D for this sort of film either. It works for wizz-bang flight sequences, but not so much for flying bits of brain and gristle.
I think a zombie flick could be awesome with 3D. Think of the zombie gibs flying past you after each shotgun blast...
Bookmarks