Posted by Patrick Chen | 2 comments
Is 3D the future of cinema?
For the last few years, 3D cinematography has been touted to become the next big thing. While I never had the distinguished honor of seeing classics such as Spy Kids or The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl, my early experiences as a kid with 3D cinematography were amazing, as I laughed and flinched at spears, balls and other random objects being thrown at me, the whole time being seated in a theatre in Disneyland. I remember those red, green and blue disposable sunglasses which sadly to this day are still just as ugly and uncomfortable. Nevertheless, despite the many obstacles presented, what was bound to happen with the technological evolution happened: 3D technology has become Hollywood’s new fad.
Center-stage in this craze is James Cameron and his 12 year old brainchild, Avatar. Though much has been said on this movie, whether it amounts to liberal eco-friendly pandering or is a red-blooded “no guts no glory” statement, or whether it should simply have been renamed “Dancing with the Smurfs” (South Park), the telling point is that very little comment has been made on the fact that it was in 3D. It is pretty clear that visually speaking Avatar is a step above other movies. James Cameron knew exactly what he wanted when he planned from day one for the movie to be in 3D and when he spent $250 million in achieving it. This hefty bill is already a forgotten memory as Avatar is well past two and a half billion dollars in revenue. However, what works for Cameron, a technical genius unto himself, will definitely not work for Hollywood.
If we look at the top three grossing movies of this year to date, all in 3D of course, Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans and How to Train Your Dragon, each of them highlights a reason why 3D is not working. While Cameron worked from the start with the idea of making Avatar a 3D movie, Tim Burton, in Alice in Wonderland, was forced to turn his movie into 3D. This resulted in a post production editing of the movie to throw in 3D here and there and this is readily apparent when you watch Alice in Wonderland. While the movie started on the right foot, the inevitable need to associate 3D with flying objects emerged as we were witness to the clash of armies and heroes gallivanting to and fro in a cookie cutter battle royale.
Clash of the Titans has none of these high minded problems of what exactly 3D adds to the movie as it is simply an awful movie. While we may question whether 3D has actually significantly impacted the gross of movies such as Avatar or Alice in Wonderland (taking into account the price difference), I can safely say that Clash of the Titans is best viewed after gouging your eyes out. The quick and messy 3D add-on was very obviously an afterthought meant to take advantage of the success of Avatar.
The big question mark looming over these two movies is how exactly has forcing 3D on these movies affected them. The major difference between both Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans and Avatar is that James Cameron had from the start developed the idea of making it in 3D. Cameron himself expresses worry at director’s being forced into 3D. “This is another example of Hollywood getting it wrong,” Cameron said. “Sony says, ‘we’re doing Spiderman in 3D.’ The director doesn’t say, ‘Hey, I want to make the movie in 3D.’ The studio says, ‘You want to direct this movie? You’re doing it in 3D, motherfucker!’ That’s not how it should be [...] now filmmakers are being told to make their movies in 3D.”
Michael Bay, director of the two Transformers movies, is also skeptical of 3D right now. In fact, though he is being pressured into turning his third Transformers movie into 3D, he does not see any benefit whatsoever. About 3D upconversion, Bay says, “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, this kind of sucks. [...] This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar tok four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie.” The point that he is making, and the point we have seen in two examples already, is that post production 3D fails to provide any benefit, and actually gives an air of the cheap and the fake to the movie.
Though How to Train Your Dragon is an awesome movie, it fails to cement 3D technology as a usable technology, as well as fails to widen the scope of 3D movies. We have seen that it has become an acceptable use of technology for animations or digitally made movies (green screen), but I cannot imagine how it will be used in a Scorsese movie or a drama like Up in the Air. This goes back to the point about how distracting 3D really can be. There is a large range of movies out there which would not benefit from the addition of 3D, which as of now is restrained to enhancing action, the notable though dubious exception being Alice in Wonderland. If you take as an example last year’s Oscar winner, The Hurt Locker, I personally cannot see any benefit that 3D would bring to this movie and I would go as far as to say that it would detract from the suspense created and the mood that is set throughout the movie.
Nevertheless, ambitious plans have been put into motions as directors left and right are jumping on the 3D bandwagon. There are plans for further animated 3D movies, such as Shrek and Toy Story, but directors are most keen on reintroducing older movies and ideas. Some of the more awkward of these choices are Step Up (3D dancing), Saw VII (3D butchery), Resident Evil: Afterlife (3D zombies), Jackass (3D trainwreck) and Yogi Bear (3D blasphemy). I’m going to stop short of calling this list laughable, as Jackass featuring Steve-O doing unimaginable things to his genitalia in 3D will be gag worthy, but this list is laughable.
Finally, and perhaps as a sidenote, we are being made to pay five extra dollars in order to see these movies in 3D. Maybe it’s the Asian genes kicking in, but where exactly is the benefit brought with the 40% price hike? The one point that 3D has yet to prove to me is what it bring to the table. Ignoring the cheap making and remaking of many movies, ranging from the amusing to the abhorrent, 3D is not only more expensive, but it distracts from the actual substance of the movie. This tradeoff between quality and plot and flashes, bangs and whizzing objects is necessarily a bad thing and 3D only serves to accentuate the growing importance of the latter. There is a reason 3D has only proven suitable in animation and movies destined to kids. It has, for now, reached its potential; unless we are planning on waiting four years for every movie to come out, or can shorten this period, leave the 3D to Disneyworld.
Contact the author via email
2 Comments