Does 3D have a place in modern cinema?
Originally posted on January 4, 2010. Written during the preview week.
Several films were released in 3D this year, six of which I have seen (My Bloody Valentine, Coraline, Monsters Vs. Aliens, The Final Destination, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Avatar). While Up was released in 3D, I instead opted for the traditional two dimensional route. Speaking of Pixar, Toy Story and Toy Story 2 also had a brief theatrical re-release in October with additional 3D, although the precise contribution of the synthetic addition to any film developed without the intent to use 3D in the first place is ultimately negligible, and the Toy Stories are no exception.
Coming into 2009, much discussion was built around whether or not 3D would ever be taken seriously with regards to its replacing of the traditional 2D filmmaking method. With the exception of schlock horror, kiddie fare, and Robert Zemeckis, 3D simply doesn’t seem to have a place in modern cinema, and 2009, for the most part, wasn’t any different. My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination continue to prove that there will always be a demand for filmmakers who make their livings throwing objects very suddenly at the screen, while Dreamworks, Pixar, and Sony Pictures Animated Division all used 3D for their animated features (Monsters Vs. Aliens, Up, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs respectively) further validating the continued use of 3D in those markets. And yes, even A Christmas Carol reminds us that Zemeckis’ obsession with the dimension is still alive and well, for better or for worse.
'It's like I'm looking up at a couple of stop motion children from deep inside a trippy tunnel, dude...'
Really though, when people disputed the validity of 3D in the future of filmmaking earlier this year, what they actually meant was whether or not James Cameron’s Avatar would be able to settle this particular debate once and for all. The other handful of 3D movies released throughout 2009 did nothing for anybody’s argument with regards to that debate, beyond prove the obvious point that those snobbish and discerning teenagers and toddlers will continue to watch whatever makes the best use of blood and primary colours respectively. And did Avatar settle the debate? Eh… yes and no.
Avatar is a truly fantastic movie, there’s no two ways about it. And yes, Avatar’s 3D was nothing short of the superlatives of the words “breathtaking”, “phenomenal”, “octopimp”, etc., and it certainly validates the use of the dimension in science fiction/fantasy as well as in horror and animated. The only problem is in the logistics of it. Avatar is the most advanced, high-tech, and futuristic movie lying and the bloodiest part of the bleeding edge, and it’ll likely take anywhere from another couple of years to a decade for the technology Cameron was allowed to get away with using to become cost effective for the average filmmaker. Cameron single-handedly gave the crazy 3D concept some serious legs, but we’re still years away from seeing it deployed in average, run of the mill films. So while it’s nice to have folks like Cameron and Spielberg come out and fully commit themselves to the use of 3D in their future feature films, as well as animated studios placing their full support behind it, the future is logistically still quite far away.
But what about the average movie? Dramas, comedies, romances, satires, and everything that could reasonably be made on a budget under $40 million? Is there a future in 3D for them? To film a movie in 3D, or to master a finished movie so that 3D can be applied, typically seems to cost around an additional $10 – $15 million. What this means is that adding 3D actually has meaningful financial consequence for studios that choose to go that particular route. It’s terribly easy for a cynical audience to look at a movie title, notice the 3D suffixed to it, and dismiss it as a terrible gimmick. While it indeed grabs the audience in the same way that a tourist trap grabs gullible out-of-towners, it isn’t necessarily such a thoughtless addition. Studios need to feel confident that the movie their funding has a chance to recover its production and marketing finances. More thought goes into applying 3D than audiences give studios credit for. As 3D becomes polished and perfected over the years, costs for its application will drop and we’ll probably start to see its use in a more diverse spectrum of genres. There certainly seems to be a future in 3D, providing issues surrounding comfort and visibility are soon dealt with. Many antagonists of the 3D debate point to cheap, tacky glasses that become an encumbrance almost immediately after the film begins. It’s a petty quarrel that clever filmmakers possess the power to alleviate, and once again let us look to James Cameron to lead the way.
Good riddance.
The inherent problem with many 3D movies is that the picture’s contrast moves beyond high into extremes; the blacks are too dark, the whites are too bright, and there’s often a dim, fuzzy rim around the edges of the screen. 3D scenes with a lot of activity also tend to track poorly, and the optimal viewing angle is quite narrow. Cameron actually did quite a lot with Avatar to address these problems. By beefing up the brightness to an almost blinding degree when the glasses are removed during 3D viewing, the visuals are far more consistent, lush, and clear with the glasses on. Flawless image tracking is still a technology that requires perfecting, however, and until the time comes when garish 3D spectacles are abandoned altogether, there’s only going to be so many seats in a theatre that enable the person in them to receive the images the way they were meant to be.
And in the end, that’s what it comes down to: when are those god-awful glasses going to become a relic of film history? With Cameron, Spielberg, Sony, and many other companies pouring tonnes of money into that particular R&D for solutions, it really can’t be very far off. If Avatar is any indication, there’s certainly a demand for the next evolution of 3D beyond it. All that’s left is to wait for the eggheads to deliver.
Comments are closed.