3D: A Cash-In Trend or The Future of Cinema?
This year, audiences are faced with a full-fledged onslaught of movies with a 3D option. This is a form of entertainment that’s asking to take more out of audience’s wallets during a time when pockets are lighter. It seems sensible to examine as many aspects of this new craze as possible, to make the average moviegoer more informed about what they’re being asked to hand over more money for by examining this latest phenomenon’s rise from obscurity, the different methods and possible intentions behind 3D releases, and general responses on the 3D format by the critical and film community.
Let’s start at the beginning.
As many already know, 3D was first introduced to theaters in the 1950s and was mostly applied to cheesy science fiction movies. It soon faded away from pop consciousness as little more than a novelty, which is where it stayed, only making appearances in the occasional horror flick or IMAX documentary. In recent years, 3D has been creeping back into the theaters. Roughly five movies were released in 2008 with the 3D option, including U2 3D, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Bolt. The technology was still viewed as mostly a novelty, but with Journey earning over nine times its budget and Bolt earning twice its budget, 3D proved to hold possible financial benefits for studios. In 2009, 3D releases jumped to over ten movies, nearly 70% of which were animated features. According to Box Office Mojo, most of these earned at least twice its budget in theaters, the biggest earners being Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs and Up, which earned nine and four times their budget, respectively.
The top dog in 3D last year ended up not being Ice Age, but a movie from a whole other planet, Avatar. While Avatar only earned roughly five and a half times its reported budget, the $500 million budget happened to also make Avatar the most expensive movie in history; its $2.7 billion earnings squashed Ice Age’s measly $884 million. What distinguished Avatar from other movies that year (among other things) was it was the only live-action adventure movie released in 3D. It proved that the technology was viable for action blockbusters, not just animated and horror pictures. Not only that, but unlike 2008’s converted Journey to the Center of the Earth, Avatar was filmed using revolutionary technology that advanced the picture quality of 3D.
All right, enough about budgets and grosses of movies past, what does it all mean?
Here’s the thing: studio executives have taken Avatar’s success (along with the success of the films mentioned above) to mean there’s been some kind of latent thirst for three-dimensional cinema in audience’s minds. No matter if there’s any truth to this or not, the order for 3D releases by studios has doubled this year from that of 2009. Warner Bros. even announced that all of their future tentpole movies (movies that are expected to be events or kick off franchises) will be released in 3D, including the final Harry Potter films.1 What isn’t clear from Warner or some of any other studio’s future releases is whether or not these films will be shot in 3D or converted from 2D to 3D.
There’s a difference? Yes, there is.
Some movies (as my limited, tech-deficient mind understands) are shot simultaneously with two or more cameras during production. These are movies that are originally intended to be seen in 3D. Other 3D releases usually are released with a 2D option. Most of these were filmed in 2D and converted to 3D during the post-production process. The result has been the subject of much dire attention by film journalists and makers, particularly with regard to live-action movies (more on that later).
This is less of an issue with CG-animated films, which are created via computer and can thereby yield better results2 (the 3D in How to Train Your Dragon is more effective than that of Avatar). However, Shrek Forever After, a movie converted to 3D, seemed to be one of the exceptions. Many, including Maura Gallucci of KZOK in Seattle, described the 3D in that movie as “distracting”.3
As for live action, last spring’s Clash of the Titans was such a 3D conversion failure that critics across the board were warning anybody who was listening to avoid paying the extra money. For example, Peter Sciretta of /Film.com described it as “unnatural”, “odd”, “subpar”, and likened it to “cardboard cutouts”.4
Regardless, one method of 3D is more often a creative preference while the other method is driven more by financial interests.
What do I mean by financial interests? Don’t all movies need to make money? Consider this: once Avatar exceeded its production budget in the box office, Warner Bros. ordered Clash of the Titans, which was to be released two months later, to be converted to 3D. Whenever a studio makes a decision about one movie based on the financial success of another movie it’s not for artistic reasons. Warner Bros. ordered a process to be completed in half the time it usually takes.
During this time, AMC, Regal Cinemas, and Cinemark all coincidentally announced a raise in ticket prices (they proceeded to raise those again six weeks later, first with the release of Alice in Wonderland then again with that of Shrek Forever After).5 The reason: 3D tickets sold; therefore they were concluded to be under-priced. Another way of putting it is the success of 3D via Avatar has made studios and theater companies as greedy as Giovanni Ribisi wringing his hands over unobtainium.
The endless fight of who will be tops at the box office has now turned into a question of who has the newest 3D movie for the week; Avatar reigned supreme through the month of January, Alice in Wonderland during its first three weeks, How to Train Your Dragon during its first and fifth weeks, Clash of the Titans during its first two weeks, and the same for Shrek Forever After. Only eight of the year’s first twenty-two weeks had a conventional 2D movie hit number one at the box office.6
Unfortunately, many people who pay the extra five dollars for a 3D-converted movie seem to regret it after the credits roll. The understanding seems to be if the movie is in 3D and costs more, then it must be a better experience, thus worth the extra money. The reality doesn’t always appear to match the impression studios want the public to have.
This is the cause of much divisive discussion among both film journalists and filmmakers. Usually, disputes over movies have the line crossed between those who make movies and those who criticize them. The 3D trend has been an interesting cause for critics to unite unofficially with filmmakers against other filmmakers and critics.
Some like the IFC.com podcast, and directors Joseph Kahn (Torque) and Martin Scorsese are supporters of 3D (yes, I just paired the director of Taxi Driver with the director of Torque). Both directors even go so far as to argue it as the future standard of cinema much like color or surround sound.
On the other hand, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, Roger Ebert, and directors Michael Bay and James Cameron have all come out against 3D. Cameron, being an advocate for 3D technology, is the most surprising to respond in this way. Here’s what he had to say:
“Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”7
Roger Ebert wrote an article for Newsweek in which he goes into depth (no pun intended) on the effects 3D has on movies on technical and business levels. He argues the recent glut of 3D stems from a forced-hand approach by executives to their directors that is prompted only by the desire to see bigger dollar signs. He also argues against its reliance on spectacle and grosses over substance and storytelling. “I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing.”8
Like Ebert, most opponents of 3D seem to take issue with the across-the-board notion of 3D’s future and the conversion-for-a-buck mentality. Michael Bay, a director known less for substance and more for spectacle, also expressed reservations recently, “I’m not sold right now on the conversion process… You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks.”9
Even to this writer, the use of 3D seems best as a creative option rather than a standard – an option best left to animation and horror, with some creative exceptions to other live action films.
One of those creative exceptions is Christopher Nolan’s forthcoming mind-twist Inception. Nolan mentioned he prefers to shoot with film rather than video, the necessary medium for 3D technology.10 Therefore, he constructed 2D shots with 3D in mind and made use of the post-production conversion process. It remains to be seen if the result is superior to Clash of the Titans, but the intention appears to be more artistic than the studio-mandated model we’ve seen and will see more of this summer.
In his essay ‘Legacy of Star Wars’, Roger Ebert illustrated how after Star Wars directors moved away from striving for the Great American Film and started aiming for the Great American Hit, thus the overabundance of tentpole movies since. Sure, we’ve had plenty of unique artistic visions over the years, but on the whole Hollywood has laid more emphasis on what will appeal to everyone and make the big bucks. This 3D craze, with its conversions, over-saturation, and hiked prices may be where Hollywood’s greed and superficial mentality was inevitably heading. After all, Lucas has been planning on converting his blockbusting saga to 3D for years.
Technology has advanced our TVs, media players, and our movies – and it isn’t perfect. Movie lovers now need to research their TVs and players before buying. DVDs have given way to Blu-Ray, an imperfect technology that requires each release to be reviewed for picture and sound quality. On top of all of that, ticket buyers are asked to pay extra for a 3D product that may be inferior to its cheaper 2D counterpart. Furthermore, customers are hoped to blindly jump on the bandwagon at home with the invention of 3D TVs and Sony decided to convert classic movies to 3D and re-release them on DVD (an idea that is evoking memories of the colorization of black and white classics).11
Gone are the days when a movie was simply a movie, good or bad. Moviegoers now need to be more informed than ever about their entertainment. More discretion is required toward what kind of movie they want their wallets to vote on rather than simply jumping at whatever looks cool or fun (Was the movie shot in 3D or converted? Is it a cash-in studio film or something original?). To be completely frank: a big box office take is the only thing that spells success to a studio executive. If only movies that look cool, regardless of quality or artistry, sell than that will be all that the studio system will greenlight and your wages will continue to be exploited.
2D / 3D transfers:
Alice in Wonderland
Clash of the Titans
Shrek Forever After
Inception
The Last Airbender
Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows
3D releases:
How to Train Your Dragon
Toy Story 3
Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Tron Legacy
Logan’s Run
Kung Fu Panda 2
Alien prequel
Unspecified 3D:
Step Up 3D
Piranha 3D
Jackass 3D
Saw VII
Green Lantern
UPDATE: According to this article, Christopher Nolan apparently never intended Inception to be in 3D. Regardless, it is possible for a director to make creative use of the conversion process by setting up scenes and shooting with 3D in mind.
1. Billington, Alex. ‘All of Warner Brothers’ Tentpole Movies Will Be Shown in 3D’, FirstShowing.net http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/03/19/all-of-warner-brothers-tentpole-movies-will-be-shown-in-3d/March 19, 2010.
2. Giardina, Carolyn. ‘Debate Waging Over 2D-to-3D Conversion’, Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ib6c66237fa7a658d92777a41589596e0 April 4, 2010.
3. Bob Rivers Show, KZOK 102.5. May 24, 2010.
4. Sciretta, Peter. ‘Peter’s Thoughts on the Post Converted Clash of the Titans 3D Footage’, /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/18/peters-thoughts-on-the-post-converted-clash-of-the-titans-3d-footage/ March 18, 2010.
5. Schuker, Lauren A. E. and Ethan Smith. ‘Ticket-Price Increases Debut at Movie Theaters,’ The Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142143922186532.html?mod=googlenews_wsj March 24, 2010. Also: Chen, David. ‘Movie Ticket Prices Hit $20 Mark’, /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/21/movie-ticket-prices-reach-20-imax-3d/ May 21, 2010.
6. Box Office Mojo. ‘Weekly Box Office Index, 1982-Present’ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekly/
7. Fleming, Mike. ‘Michael Bay and James Cameron Skeptical of 3D Conversions: “The Jury is Out”’, Deadline New York http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/michael-bay-james-cameron-skeptical-of-3d-conversions-the-jury-is-out/ March 23, 2010.
8. Ebert, Roger. ‘Why I Hate 3D (And You Should Too)’, Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html May 10, 2010.
9. Fleming.
10. Sciretta, Peter. ‘Christopher Nolan Filmed Some of Inception Using 65mm, Calls 3D “An Interesting Development”, /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/25/christopher-nolan-filmed-some-of-inception-using-65mm-calls-3d-an-interesting-development/ March 25, 2010.
11. Gleiberman, Owen. ‘Colorization, part II? Sony Now Plans to Reissue Some Classic Titles… in 3D’, EW.com http://movie-critics.ew.com/2010/02/04/sony-wants-to-reissue-classics-in-3-d/ February 4, 2010.