Will They Stop With The 3D Claims Already?
Uh… no.
Here is the latest WSj story on the 3-D Crazy. (Note also that it puts a modest $175,00 price tag on the BofA promo for Monsters vs Aliens… a new fact from real reporters that is unlike to get any play on Drudge or the gossip columnists peddling the lie of some massive deal that undermines the US government.)
Jeffrey Katzenberg has created a remarkable legacy for himself. He has, unlike anyone else other than Lasseter and Pixar, wrestled the legacy of Walt Disney to the ground. He has been a leading figure in building/building two live-action studios, Disney and DreamWorks. And he has done it all as the working stiff and not the self-iconizing charm merchant that others have worked so hard to be.
Does he really want to throw it all away on 3-D?
The thing about 3-D is that it is much better than it was and it is much more widely viable than before with the installation of digital projectors across the globe. However, it is not the savior of the film business. It is not The Next DVD. And as we have seen so far, not only is it an incremental box office winner, but it has a bad tendency to marginalize, by its offering, non-3D offerings of the same product.
If you asked me what the box office savior of The Polar Express was, I would have to say, “3-D.” And if you asked me what the box office downfall of Beowulf was, I would have to say, “3-D.” Anyone who was anxious to see that film was anxious to see it in 3-D. And there just weren’t enough screens.
There is a slightly different, morphed version of the problem with Coraline, which has performed beyond expectations, but lost a great deal of its audience draw when it lost 3-D screens to The Jonas Brothers’ 1 day storming of the 3-D box office.
Thing is, Coraline in 2-D looked great and would have been a thrill for the audiences of kids and adults alike out there. Ironically, as the fight over a re-stylized version of The French Connection in Blu-ray rages for cinephiles, the “two versions” of Coraline are running in theaters, quite the different visual experiences… as was the experience on The Polar Express to an even greater extent. The difference was, Polar Express in 2-D kinda sucked… and in 3-D, it was pretty magical.
This brings us to the “won’t it be better when every screen can play 3-D?,” issue. The answer is “no,” and here’s why… not every film is better in 3-D, just as every movie experience is not better in IMAX. I have now had a few experiences with IMAX where the experience of the film was worse for the size of IMAX. I still love IMAX and what it does for some films. The issue, again, on a film like Speed Racer, of what the digital car racing looked like on IMAX vs a smaller screen… amazingly different. And I still can’t really say which I prefer… because they were so very different. Did I prefer the disconnected pinball feel of the smaller film or the giant grounded cars of the IMAX version? (shrug)
But here is the biggest problem… the more mainstreamed the 3-D experience, the more meaningless it will be as a marketing tool and the less willing people will be to pay increased amounts for it. Of course, there will always be exceptions. But as Warners found out, the audience for Harry Potter didn’t change its size significantly because of a 3-D or IMAX section of film.
3-D and IMAX cannibalize “regular” screenings in all but a few cases. Only when a film is having box office problems does the 3-D or IMAX win seem to become a financial boon. And keep this in mind… selling out IMAX theaters of 150 – 250 seats with a limited number of venues is a marketing slight of hand, not a change in the movie business model. If a studio said, “here are the 500 screens – not every screen in the multiplex – that will give away free t-shirts to Big Movie X on opening weekend,” those theaters would see a big increase in business. (ironically, this is a stunt that Katzenberg tried on Dick Tracy. I still have my shirt, though the theater has been knocked down.) But the surrounding theaters would see a decrease as a result. This is not a complex principle.
There is nothing wrong with 3-D… though the glasses, while better, still aren’t great… and every person’s eyes are not necessarily able to have the full experience. But as a business model, it is an incremental winner with the really good chance of fading back into fad status.
This is the trouble in Movie Mudville these days. Business is good, even if the studios need to make a dramatic correction in how they are spending to make and market films. But the audience is still there… still hungry… still vulnerable to great marketing. But that is not enough. The industry wants the kind of growth that DVD brought. There are all kinds of great opportunities, from 3-D to self-promoted direct marketed movies over the web and/or DVD and even theatrical to the eventual return of 2nd run and living arthouses by way of digital projection.
But the sad revelation is, There Is No Spoon.
At least, no tablespoon or ladle or forklift. And this is an industry of size queens. Time to get over that and to take the pleasure where it can be gotten and not just where it makes your ego grow
Way to step up to the plate and knock it out of the park David. I’m been having this same conversation also. Not sure why Katz is rolling out such a do or die case for 3-D. Personally, I think the invention of vistavision/panavision/anamorphic widescreen was really the middle advance in film presentation. Hollywood had to do something to get those people away from their televisions.
Still got my Dick Tracy shirt too, in the same droor with my Back To The Future Back-To-Back-To Back shirt.
“Did I prefer the disconnected pinball feel of the smaller film or the giant grounded cars of the IMAX version? (shrug)”
Sorry, but preferring Speed Racer on a smaller and less quality than the IMAX just seems silly.
I want a Dick Tracy shirt. Dick Tracy, fyi, is the very first movie I ever remember seeing in the cinema. It’s still one of my truly favourite movies ever (and not for nostalgia reasons).
3D has another big problem. The price. Yes, it may only be a few dollars, but that’s still a lot when people complain about ticket prices rising by 50 cents! I know my partner and I decided to go home and watch a DVD instead of spend nearly $20 on My Bloody Valentine. And while I intend to see Coraline and saw Beowulf, I can’t say movies like Up are really begging to be seen in 3D at the moment.
I saw Coraline in 3D last night and was surprised by the price. $25 for two tickets is pretty steep around here.
Dave’s right of course. I’m waiting for some sketch show or online humor site to do a ‘Duplicity in IMAX 3D!’ type commercial. I still remember a girlfriend whose parents (who were wine tasters no less) went to see Sideways at their local theater and that local theater was showing it on an IMAX screen (this was back when theaters occasionally had an extra IMAX screen with nothing specific to show on it). And they hated it because the image was grainy and most obviously blown up. Why the theater didn’t choose The Incredibles or National Treasure I cannot say. But said girlfriend’s parents were treated to ‘Sideways… in IMAX!!”
And if people think that studios are skimping on adult thrillers and dramas now, just wait till every studio wants a stable of product that’s best suited to 3D or IMAX presentation.
DP, it also sound’s like Cameron is focused on 3D for Avatar. Given the cost and expectations of that film, do you feel there should be so much focus on 3D?
It seems like given the accessibility of 3D, 3D should be used as a type of supplement to the movie roll out instead of the focus. Especially on a big-budgeted event film.
IIRC Paramount planned to cover the cost of 3D setups if they were installed by 3/27. “Monsters vs. Aliens” opens that very day — and is being distributed by Par.
Technology is easier to control over say…good scripts.
Christian, aint that the truth. 3D is a scam, and while several movies each year are ideal for the format, there are many, many more that play worse in the format. This is just some lazy way to try and make a few more bucks per viewers. For some like Cameron and Zemeckis, the technology is suited to their tech-heavy filmmaking style. But most stories do not need or benefit from it. In fact, I agree with the comments above that many films converted to IMAX are simply distracting to view that way. Certainly ones that were shot in 2.35 look retarded with their screwed up IMAX framing. I remember seeing Clones in IMAX and it looked terrible as the DP obviously had not framed for it. There are other technologies that can be added to the multiplex, along with amenities to improve the experience, but 3d is IMO a niche market indefinitely.
You guys are starting to sound like Siskel & Ebert arguing for Black & White movies. Which has some merit, but they chose as one of their examples an awesome dress someone like Rita Hayworth wore. Um, wouldn’t it look more awesome in Red or Blue?
There’s some artifacts from the DDR process especially noticable in darkly lit close-ups like a LOT of Matrix Reloaded, but the beginning with the close up of Trinity and the explosion in the background more than made up for it.
Why isn’t there more footage shot in IMAX? Those scenes are the best in Dark Knight. The slight feeling of Vertigo in the helicopter shot scenes, the awesome detail like a closeup in the medium shots in the first scene, the armored car chase with the incredibly creepy burning fire truck and a semi flipping with the whole truck in frame.
I’m not saying that IMAX and/or 3-D cannot be used to fantastic effect… and has.
But not in every movie. Some movies are better in 2-D, just as some films – usually comedies – play better on the TV/DVD than on a big screen.
Why is this notion, expressed by others here as well, bad?
What’s the DDR process?
DDR is the process used to scan 35mm film into IMAX format. At first, it wasn’t possible to scan the whole movie (hence the cuts made to Attack of the Clones when it screened in IMAX). It’s gotten a lot better since then. I agree most movies don’t need it, and IMAXization should stick to stuff like Potter, Matrix, TDK, etc., which benefit most from it. Same for 3-D.
i not only still have my dick tracy shirt but also the beach towel and the fedora (that served as your ticket to the premiere at disney world)… jus’ sayin’…
No DDR is the German name for East Germany. DMR is the IMAX uprez process. And it’s a scam too. IMAX lovers are all suckers, and I won’t waste my time on such nonsense. “Sorry, but preferring Speed Racer on a smaller and less quality than the IMAX just seems silly.” Ha, less quality. What an illiterate scream.
from TIME
‘filmmakers say that 3-D, like sound and color, really breaks down the barrier between audience and movie.’
big jim:
‘3-D viewing “is so close to a real experience that it actually triggers memory creation in a way that 2-D viewing doesn’t.” His [cameron’s] own theory is that stereoscopic viewing uses more neurons.’
big steve:
‘Every movie I made, up until Tintin, I always kept one eye closed when I’ve been framing a shot,” Spielberg told me. That’s because he wanted to see the movie in 2-D, the way moviegoers would. “On Tintin, I have both of my eyes open.”‘
big pete:
“At some level, I believe that almost any movie benefits from 3-D,” Lord of the Rings director Jackson says. “As a filmmaker, I want you to suspend disbelief and get lost in the film–participate in the film rather than just observe it. On that level, 3-D can only help.”
Is that TIME from 1953?
And I politely disagree with Mr. Cameron and Mr. Jackson (more neurons? Give me a break).
Yeah, the few 3-D movies I’ve seen, you keep thinking “wow, it looks like I could grab that snake!” I don’t know that it’s an immersive experience. Although if we got more used to seeing them, maybe that effect would go away. But for now, 3-D is sort of distracting from the narrative, in my opinion.