Thursday, September 15, 2011
Four theories on the death of 3-D.
Slate Magazine: This time last year, there were whispers among film executives and industry-watchers that 3-D cinema had worked its way down a blind alley with its pockets full of cash. That summer, the format seemed like the answer to all of Hollywood's problems: shrinking ticket sales, video piracy, home-theater viewing. The studios had put out a run of record-smashing, premium-priced blockbusters: Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, Clash of the Titans, Shrek Forever After, and Toy Story 3—a half-dozen 3-D movies that earned more than $2 billion in domestic sales. Yet by the end of August 2010, the future of cinema was starting to look unsteady on its feet. Box-office returns from the next wave of 3-D films were disappointing. The revival needed reviving.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think this article brings up a number of good points as to why 3D seems to be going by the wayside yet again. The fact is that 3D as it's being used by most of Hollywood, is just an extra gimmick to get more money out of a ticket to a movie, and people have gotten wise to the fact that theaters jacked up the price of a 3D movie when people were going to see them left and right. They tried to do awful conversion (see Avatar: The Last Airbender) or just bad premises they tried to jazz up with 3D to get a few extra bucks (see most recent horror movies, like Final Destination 5). The fact is that it rarely gets done well, and is not worth the extra money and hassle most of the time. I'll stick with keeping my extra few dollars when I go to the theater until 3D starts getting used more constructively and not just on every mediocre film that comes around to add effect
Well, consistent with AJ's thoughts, 3D has become an example of converse reasoning, i.e., it's a form onto which other ideas are bent rather than one that rises out of the original idea. Avatar was an exception: the 3D world that they created held information that was best experienced if the user saw it in 3D. The most recent 3D film I saw, Harry Potter number 8, did not gain anything from the addition of 3D.
Looking at RealD's stock, as the article suggested, indeed shows the hallmarks of a fad.
I can't say that I'm surprised that 3-D movies haven't become the necessity that the industry thinks it is. I do, however, think that a permanent switch will be made in the near future, but that not everybody is ready for it yet. There seems to be a trend where new movies, that have made a big deal about the fact that their film will be played in 3-D (ex: Avatar) have profited from it, but movies that are a part of a series (Harry Potter, Toy Story 3) have not. I wonder how much of this has to do with the fact that people have grown used to watching these popular movies in 2-D, and didn't want to break that tradition for the final films. I teenager/adult reminiscing about the first two Toy Story films is not going to get the nostalgic feeling they were going for if the third film is shown in a completely different, higher tech dimension. I believe that 3-D movie revenues will continue to rise, but not nearly as quickly as the film industry hopes it will.
THANK GOD 3D is dying. Avatar looked cool but I was and still am sick of all the hype over 3D and it is about time it goes out the back door. Movies are already 3D in a sense, with the cinematography. The cinematographer put a lot of effort into what is in focus and what is not and this is truly an art. So much of this is lost when a movie is viewed in 3D and I think it can also distract heavily from the story line.
I really appreciated how this article pointed to multiple issues with 3D, rather than focusing on only one (the jacked-up prices being the most egregious offender to reviewers). I believe that viewers have become sufficiently discerning to see beyond the immediate draw of being "in the movie" to decide whether the 3D will enhance or forward the storytelling experience. This weekend's remastering of The Lion King actually creates an interesting dilemma for me. The film was originally drawn and designed for 2D display, and yet there are scenes that would definitely be enhanced by 3D display (such as the appearance of Mufasa's spirit in the clouds to Simba). 3D would likely enhance the emotional impact of such an epic image. However, how flexible will the rest of the hand-drawn animation be to accommodate the extra dimension forced upon it? And how will the colors and clarity of the image be impacted by essentially wearing a pair of sunglasses to watch it?
I personally feel like the real death of the 3-D movie is that everyone now does a 3-D movie even though the movie doesn't need to be in 3-D. Movies that are suppose to be 3-D have moments that really pop out at you. But then there are the movies that have no business being in 3-D. It's just a waste of money to go to a movie that has no cool 3-D movies when you could have just seen it in 2-D. Producers are just jumping on the bandwagon, everyone is doing 3-D so we have to do it too. I'm just sick of all these 3-D movies. They are just a waste of money, just see it in 2-D it will be the same and you don't have to wear those silly glasses.
Personally, I would contribute the "death" of 3-D to two of the factors mentioned in the article. Crappy implementation and increased ticket prices. As previous posters have mentioned, many many of the movies released in 3-D have not added artistic or story-telling benefit. The 3-D is simply added on afterwards as a gimmick. What Avatar did really nicely is it incorporated the 3-D effect into the world holistically and did not use it as a "surprise" when the hand jumps out at you. James Cameron used the technology to enhance the world in which he was setting the movie. I can't recall any instances where the 3-D effect was used specifically to make something jump out.
The second cause, increased ticket prices is simply another nail in the coffin. If the 3-D is not delivering added benefit, why would movie-goers pay a premium for it? The technology has far outgrown its "cool" factor and is now something that most everyone has seen.
Finally, I just don't think that the technology is there yet. And frankly, I don't know that it will ever be. 3-D movies may not become legitimate until we move to holographic projectors like in Star Wars (if that ever happens). The brain can only withstand so much trickery before it simply rejects the whole thing.
I mentioned this last year and now after the worst summer since 1997, 3-D doesnt work. it is a gimmick which has been used to desperately try and get people in the seats since the 1950's and in the multiple times since the industry has tried to revive it in order to bail themselves out of thier rut and as an ulterior to actually fixing the problem at hand. as we can see now. it didnt work again and as exspected , numbers are still dropping and hollywood still has a problem
If you want to see a movie in 3D go see a play. While I agree with the exhaustive list of comments on this article that 3D technology is often applied to movies to get some extra money without providing extra content, how this technology might influence the world of live performance is worth noting. If audience members are really unsatisfied with watching 2D characters on a screen and need to feel immersed in the story, I wonder if these same audience members will expect more from theatrical design. A significant portion of contemporary plays and musicals make no attempt to create a 4th wall within the story, so why not bring the world out into the audience as well. Part of what makes Phantom, Mary Poppins, and Spiderman interesting is their use of flying effects over the audience. I'm curious to see how this reverse theatre in the round evolves out of this fad for full immersion in entertainment.
Post a Comment