The Great 3D "Debate" Shouldn't Be a Debate at All
So, almost every week over the last two years, there has been an article in some publication, somewhere that asks whether 3D is the "silver bullet" that will save the movie business particularly since big screen TV's and HD have drastically improved the in-home entertainment experience. To be fair, IMAX, with our long history in 3D, has been a part of many of these articles.
In fact, tomorrow, Fox will be hosting special sneak previews of James Cameron's Avatar in 3D at a number of theatres across the country, which promises to generate even more interest from consumers and the news media in the 3D entertainment phenomenon.
With so much attention, it literally begs the question -- what's all the fuss about? I believe there's been far too much focus on an all-or-nothing approach to 3D, so let me help clarify:
- Yes: 3D movies are enjoying an incredible resurgence, driven in some part by studios and exhibitors looking for new ways to keep moviegoers in theatres.
- No: 3D in and of itself is not going to "save" the movie industry.
- Yes: visionary filmmakers are telling incredible stories in 3D.
- No: not every film makes sense in 3D.
So rather than ask whether 3D is the solution, we should be asking what will keep 3D from fading away when movies shown this way are no longer a novelty?
History shows that 3D has had many ups and downs. The early days of 3D began on a positive note but the initial success at the box office led some studios to believe that adding the 3D treatment to any movie would help boost its performance. The "B movies" made in 3D over-saturated the marketplace and ultimately overloaded moviegoers' appetite for the medium. Too much 3D with too many undeserving films also left most visionary filmmakers of that era out of the medium, while those who did create a potential blockbuster 3D film, such as Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, were far too late to save 3D and ultimately never released their films in a wide 3D release.
IMAX has been working in 3D -- both in shooting and producing original content and with converting Hollywood titles into IMAX 3D -- for more than two decades. One thing we have learned for certain (and occasionally learned the hard way via box office results) is that not every movie works in 3D. The point that people seem to keep missing is that the 3D element must help tell the story. A director must ask how using this medium helps grab the audience... Because simply adding a third dimension to a boring tale will never work.
The reason I'm optimistic about 3D this time around is that the greatest storytellers of our time are the ones embracing the 3D format. Visionaries like Tim Burton, Jim Cameron, Peter Jackson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Henry Selick, Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis all have 3D projects underway.
I believe Hollywood is always at its best when it evolves and innovates, so a debate of "will it" or "won't it" succeed is overly simplistic. 3D works when our greatest artists are telling their greatest stories using a unique vision for 3D. The current stable of creative geniuses using the tools that have been developed like motion capture, CGI and 2D to 3D conversion of live action will help make 3D movies a lasting innovation.
Even more new production tools have already been developed for the creation of 3D content, as the world is going to experience when they get the first look at Jim Cameron's groundbreaking Avatar tomorrow. I consider myself lucky to have seen some of the footage but it is hard to describe in words the cinematic brilliance Cameron has accomplished. Maybe giving audiences a sneak peek is a great way to introduce the result of the new 3D production, and I hope you're one of the lucky ones to be a part of that opportunity
While IMAX is proud to be involved with many of the world's visionary 3D filmmakers and believe the 3D experience in IMAX theatres is unrivaled, the real staying power for 3D films will depend on the artists telling a compelling story and taking consumers to new places to experience new things they cannot get in 2D.
These filmmakers with their storytelling ability, their leadership and the new technology at their fingertips will reset the benchmark for 3D film experiences and that is only for the better.
This time I think 3D will be a success for all of the right reasons that have sustained Hollywood since its beginning -- great technology, great artists, great artistry and great stories. Rather than debate it, I believe we should embrace it... while remembering that there is no guaranteed formula for success and that is part of the magical nature of the movie business!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It don't matter if it the film is shot in 3D, 2D, 1D, 70mm, 35mm, DV, HD video, or on a cell phone...
If the film sucks, it sucks.
The best strategy for Hollywood is to make better movies!
I hate the stupid glasses.
Obviously you don't wear eyeglasses. The 3D glasses are an improvement over the old red and white ones, but they still feel uncomfortable to anyone who needs real glasses.
A good movie is a good movie regardless of whether it's in 3D or not. I was impressed with Coraline's 3D, but thought the 3D in Up added nothing to the experience, even though it was a much better movie.
"Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" is in 3D and is very well done. No eye problems for me or my family.
I would not have enjoyed it as much if it had not been in 3D.
Warhol's Frankenstein in 3-D...now 'ats what 'ahm tawking about.
Honestly, the cheese factor for 3-D is beyond cheddar.
Honestly, I would like to go to a film. Any film that doesn't have over the top
special effects. They all give me a headache.
"I believe Hollywood is always at its best when it evolves and innovates"
The problem is that, while the art direction and graphics capabilities of films have evolved and improved, the imaginations of people in Hollywood and the redundant stories told have not. Take Titanic for example. The appeal of that film was the destruction of the ship. The story was dreadful, with 2-dimensional characters, terrible dialogue, and a hackneyed love plot. Cameron's Avatar looks like every other American CGI heavy movie out there--the creators can't think of anything interesting for their expensive computer generated characters to do, so they make it a good guys vs. bad guys story and end with a war. Hooray! Another movie that promotes war and aggression as a way to solve problems.
"The "B movies" made in 3D over-saturated the marketplace and ultimately overloaded moviegoers' appetite for the medium."
Just like a corporate executive to see everything in terms of "market saturation" and "overloaded appetites", not to mention talking about 3D projection as though it were an absolute, as though every film marketed and screened as a 3D movie used the exact same technology and the same effectiveness. "B" movies as a whole were almost invariably horrible except when unintentionally hilarious. The audience then was more than sophisticated enough to tell the difference between major productions and "B" movies, and they tailored their expectations accordingly. The author makes them sound like cinema goldfish, who would simply continue to gorge themselves on a particular genre (or medium) of film (or novelty therein) until their tummies ached and they had to go home to watch animated bromide commercials until the film industry came up with something new.
"...those who did create a potential blockbuster 3D film, such as Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, were far too late to save 3D and ultimately never released their films in a wide 3D release."
Far too late? Oh really?
The author describes the "B" 3D movies of the fifties, otherwise known as the "golden age" of 3D, causing a glut in the market with Hitchcock being too late to save the medium...
The golden age of 3D lasted -not even- three years. It began in December 1952. It ended in February of 1955. "Dial "M" for Murder" was released -in 1954-. I know the industry moved a good deal more quickly in that era, but come on.
That wasn't time enough for the novelty to wear off, much less for "B" movies to have created market saturation, and it certainly wasn't enough time for Hitch to be "far too late".
The truth of what went wrong for 3D in that era may hit a bit too close to home for the author of this particular blog. The truth is that technical problems spelled the downfall of polaroid's 3D. The truth is that the projection was too hard to sync, and the audience suffered eyestrain and headaches every time the films fell out of sync. The truth is that, much like native IMAX film stock, the polaroid process could only deliver one hour of film time before requiring an intermission, and repairing damaged prints was nearly impossible because of the need to keep both reels in exact sync frame to frame. The truth is that it was ultimately theater owners who rejected 3D in favor of the new widescreen, non-3D projection formats as a way to woo audiences away from television.
The audience barely had a chance to complain about the problems, much less have their goldfish appetites "overloaded". But I can understand why the author would prefers his revisionist version. It would make sense that he wants to concern himself with questions of novelty, or market saturation, or even piracy. I'm sure he would prefer to discuss any of those issues before discussing just what IMAX is supposed to mean today, or what kind of a -format- the term "IMAX" now defines, or what -standards- of resolution or projection or -screen size- for which audiences should be expected to pay a hefty premium.
The TRON sequel will be in 3D - Steven Lisberger, Jeff Bridges, Olivia Wilde (Maxim's recent cover girl - "World's most desirable Woman, or some such), Garret Hedlund. The buzz at Comicon was off the charts...
I like 3D fine, but it's just not worth the extra cost to watch an already expensive movie in 3D. After several nothing-spectacular experiences with 3D movies, I'm going to wait until the Star Wars films come out in 3D before I pay to see anything else that way.
Nobody in my family can watch them - we all get blinding headaches and nausea. Seems to be very common, just about everyone mentions walking out of the theater with at least somewhat of a headache. I won't go see them, we specifically seek out movie theaters where they show the standard version.
Ironically, my brother works in 3D, CGI and animation - and he gets sickest of all of us watching 3D. He hates it.
I do wish that movies would spend a little more time on writing and a tad less on effects - CGI is everywhere in every movie, but Transformers-like effects are over-rated. Just compare the old Indiana Jones movies to the last one, which I liked, but it wasn't nearly as good as the old ones. It did have a ton of effects, though, but even then, it didn't save the story, what there was of one. A lot of movies seem to want to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into every scene, and eventually, it just gets annoying. It's become a bit of one-upmanship - who can have the most effects in the least amount of time to grab the audience. Fortunately, my DVD player has a fast forward button.
Richard, please rename the IMAX jr screens to something else entirely, they're damaging the otherwise astounding IMAX brand.
Seconded.
Steven Speilberg, Peter Jackson and Tim Burton are the greatest story tellers of our time?
Yeah maybe inside your little mainstream commercial world they are but in the real world where box office means nothing and art is the be all and end all they fit nicely inside the box. I prefer outside of the box.
after watching coraline in 3D, i will NEVER watch another movie in 3D. the format has not improved since the 1950s, the glasses don't fit properly and my eyes hurt within minutes of putting the glasses on - the pain lasted well into the following day.
After seeing "Up" in 3D and IMAX (at a real IMAX theater) I will never see another 3D movie again, either. I lifted up the glasses from time to time during the film, and you could see how much of the brilliant color you were losing by having to wear the gray 3D glasses. I'd rather sacrifice the dimension and see the color. It's just stupid that they can't work this technology out so you can have both. Oh, and also: it sucked to discover after the movie had already started that the glasses, which were handed to me in a SEALED plastic bag, were horribly scratched and fingerprinted. I applaud the re-use of 3D glasses from showing to showing, but with what the theaters charge for an IMAX showing, they really ought to weed out the most scratched and dirty pairs.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
