Den of Geek

Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema

Simon Brew


To the studios: don't just add a couple of 3D effects once the film is all but in the can. Actually commit to the process, and dare to experiment with it

More films are embracing 3D, to not very impressive effect. Is it just a gimmick to relieve us of more cash, or is 3D the real deal? And will Avatar be 3D's defining moment?

Published on Jul 29, 2009

December 18th 2009 could prove to be not just a pivotal date for 20th Century Fox's accountants, but also the big defining moment for 3D cinema. Because that's the day that James Cameron's eagerly awaited Avatar finally makes its cinema bow. And it's also the day where we get to see if there's far more to 3D cinema than we've been treated to thus far.

Gimmick?

In the olden days, of course, 3D was regarded and treated as a gimmick. A fun gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless. Thus, we trotted in to see films such as Jaws 3-D, A Nightmare On Elm Street 6 and even the third Spy Kids movie to sit and wear some daft looking glasses, spurred on by marketing lines suggesting we'd be getting 'closer to the action', or some such hokum. We never did, of course, but to be fair, we probably knew that when we walked in.

But then, a few years ago, several major film makers really started to talk up 3D as the future of cinema. At the time, I wondered if they were doing so simply because they wanted it - for various agendas - to be the future of cinema, but nonetheless, I was intrigued. This time, it seemed, many cinemas were actually going to invest in the proper technology for 3D films, and the movies too would be treated properly as well. This was no gimmick, it seemed. There was commitment on all sides coming through.

Now personally, I'm always interested in anything that can enhance further the fun of watching a movie on a huge screen. I buy tickets for any IMAX release of a film I want to see over seeing said flick on a conventional screen, for instance. And while I've always suspected that 3D is the answer to a question that not many people seemed to be asking - films have, after all, survived in two dimensions perfectly well for a long time now - I do believe that evolution of the medium is a good thing. Even if, for some time, 3D was something that was there, but few really seemed interested in doing much with it.

The Journey

Any movie studio that was reluctant to embrace 3D film making, though, surely had its head turned by the performance of last year's Brendan Fraser headliner, Journey To The Center Of The Earth. This was, to be fair, a shitty little film, but one that played for most of the summer, solely off the back of its 3D gimmickry. And said gimmickry was out in force, with the film feeling like a feature length version of those old 3D cinemas you used to get in theme parks. Any excuse to lug something unconvincingly towards the camera was not resisted, and the end result was a film that coasted by on its 3D work, and little else. Given that it took over $100m at the US box office as a result, it's unsurprising that a sequel is on the way.

Yet Journey To The Center Of The Earth Again, or whatever the sequel may be called, will have a far tougher time when it finally arrives. For it now seems that there's not a major movie studio out there that's not trying to frantically re-tool releases old and new to make the most of the 3D ‘revolution' while it's in its infancy, and arguably audience interest is at its highest. Raiding through the archives, films such as the Toy Storys, Beauty And The Beast, Titanic, Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings are all rumoured or have been confirmed for the 3D treatment. I'm always cautious about ‘retrofitting' such an effect to material that wasn't intended for 3D transmission in the first place, but nonetheless, I suspect I'll be buying a couple of tickets for some of those anyway, intrigued to see just what difference 3D will make.

Studios are falling over themselves to add 3D to their existing slate, too, no matter how far into production certain films are. Take the recent Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs. This was a two and a half to three year production, yet when we spoke to one of the project's lead animators (link at the bottom of the article), he revealed that the notion of it being released in 3D wasn't there from day one. Instead, a stereoscopic team was brought in, with less than a year of production left, to add the necessary effects. That, to us, sounds more like jumping on a bandwagon rather than attempting to properly integrate 3D into a motion picture.

I felt the same after leaving a screening of Monsters vs Aliens. I enjoyed the film, but, having been charged a couple of quid extra to attend a 3D screening, I wondered just what I'd paid my money for. Sure, there was a gratuitous shot of a ball on a string (I think that's what it was) coming towards the screen, and one or two good sequences in space, but this, surely, wasn't really a 3D film? Surely instead it was a 2D film with some 3D bits plastered on it, as an excuse to add a bit more to the ticket price? That's very much how it came across from my seat.

It certainly felt that way too after seeing Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince. I caught it on an IMAX screen, with ‘certain sequences' in 3D. I sat there with my glasses on, waiting to be impressed, and got the strong opening sequence, and then Dumbledore and Harry having a chat. Honestly? I couldn't wait to take the damn things off by that point. 3D has added pretty much nothing.

Fair's Fair

Studios, for my money, have to play fair with 3D if they want us to continually stump up for it. DreamWorks, for instance, has now decided not to release a 3D version of Monsters vs Aliens on DVD or Blu-ray, simply because the technology in our homes isn't up to the job. Having struggled to appreciate the 3D of Coraline by squinting through cheap cardboard glasses in the direction of my TV set, I think that's a wise plan, and I appreciate DreamWorks avoiding the urge to slap 3D on the box, without it having much of an enhancement in the home.

But can we extend that to the big screen, too? To the studios: don't just add a couple of 3D effects once the film is all but in the can. Actually commit to the process, and dare to experiment with it. That's what's made technological improvements in cinema quite so compelling over the years: when someone takes something new, and actually does something with it that's to the good of the production concerned. Right now, 3D for the most part feels like something extra to put on the poster, and a good reason to relieve us of some extra cash, in return for something that, right now, is not wholly convincing.

And that's why Avatar matters. Leaving aside for a minute the sheer fact that it's a brand new James Cameron movie, which would have had us pre-booking our seats anyway, this is the work of a man who has continually pushed the technical boundaries of cinema. 3D needs an advocate such as James Cameron, and needs someone like him who's willing to bathe his entire production in 3D technology. The film is a massive gamble on many levels, but if 3D is really going to be the future of cinema, then I suspect we'll be getting an indication that's so by the end of the year.

Likewise, keep an eye out for another technical innovator, Robert Zemeckis. Before the aforementioned screening of Harry Potter, we were treated to a 3D trailer of his upcoming A Christmas Carol, and here, for the first time, I felt myself being genuinely impressed with what was being projected onto the screen in 3D. I can't say I've got a desperate urge to sit through another telling of the classic Charles Dickens story - between The Muppets and Blackadder, they've already nailed that one for me - but I'll be front and centre when A Christmas Carol opens. Because on the basis of the trailer - and I appreciate I might be falling into a trap here - I'm genuinely intrigued as to just how effective 3D could be.

Revolution?

Zemeckis and Cameron, though, I truly believe are the kind of guys who won't just press the 3D button as a gimmick. They're, instead, the kind of directors who believe in it, and will properly bother with it. That's why it's their films that could yet define how much of a revolution 3D actually is in cinema.

No matter how they do, an army of 3D films is still heading our way over the coming year or two. TinTin, Alice In Wonderland, Toy Story 3, How To Train Your Dragon, Piranha 3D, The Final Destination (and I do wonder if horror may yet prove to be the natural home of 3D cinema), Cats & Dogs: Revenge Of Kitty Galore, Shrek Forever After, Rapunzel, Step Up 3-D, Despicable Me, The Smurfs and Oobermind are just some of the titles looking to add a premium to your ticket price. Here's hoping, though, that they do more to justify it than some of the ‘3D' films we've sat through to date.

And Mr Cameron? We'll be seeing you on December 18th. Because we really, really want you to be right about 3D....

 

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By Robmac 1 July 29, 2009 09:25:42 AM

weird - I am just working with a techie team at work about 3d and the benefits and problems that will occur. It is indeed a gimmick but its also a gimmick that SKY and the BBC might well invest in for television as there are trials of new systems that can be broadcast at home. The BBC also trialed the first live satellite 3DS (stereoscopic) broadcast last March, which would have 'real-time' 3D transmissions beamed straight to TVs at home. Of course we are all going to need new tellys (again)but companied like Phillps are really looking into it as a viable future for products. .If its done correctly I feel it can add to a film or show, but content creator will has to stay away from the ball or stick being poked at the screen gimmick. However there is also the problem that when it looses its 'wow' factor after five minutes or so which at times i feel blu-ray does (once you have gone oh and ahh doesnt it look pretty in HD) it will just be a film. The technology is fine, but the story, plot and content needs to be as good as the technology displaying it.

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By Nostromo71 1 July 29, 2009 11:52:59 AM

I took my nephew to see Ice Age 3 in 3D. Parts of it looked quite impressive - however after about 20 minutes the glasses caused pain - so I had to regualrly take them off -my nephew had the same experience. Avatar sounds amazing but knowing Jim Cameron it will be a LONG film - so it's gonna be a real trial to watch it!

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By Utini42 1 July 29, 2009 01:29:07 PM

The problem I have with 3-D is... I now have four sets of glasses. Most theaters have added a few bucks onto the ticket price to cover the cost of the glasses. My local theater also has a glasses recycle bin that encourages people to drop off the glasses they just paid for after the movie. Ticket prices are high enough. I'm not going to pay $13 to see a movie. They should encourage people to save their glasses which will then allow them the regular ticket price the next time they come see a 3-D movie. 3-D can be fun (Coraline, Up) but most of the things I've seen in 3-D were not worth the extra cash. Plus: Landfills full of discarded 3-D glasses...

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By jencat 1 July 29, 2009 03:44:06 PM

The other problem with 3D is that the technology itself seems a bit.. hit and miss. I can't be the only person wearing glasses/contacts who has trouble seeing the full effect of 3D, surely? And yet Coraline and Monsters vs Aliens were awkward to watch as any fast movement appeared jerky to me when I wore prescription glasses under the 3D specs.. I tried watching the IMAX 3D sequence of Harry Potter with contact lenses in and it was distracting and slightly blurry, so basically I'm paying extra to watch films when I'd actually see more in 2D. Also.. the 3D specs at the IMAX are fairly comfortable, but the cheap cardboard jobs given out everywhere are hideously uncomfortable - most of the audience seemed to be squirming to get rid of them halfway through Coraline..!

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By mugwump 1 July 29, 2009 03:44:50 PM

If Avatar can get it right - regardless on whether it's a good movie or not - and get the 3D to feel really integral...to the point of watching it on a normal cinema screen or DVD will be a major step down from the 3D experience then other studios will jump on it. I think this is what Cameron is banking on - just making a by the numbers action film wouldn't seem like a worthy follow up to Titanic. He's also be heavily involved with the development of 3D films, so he must think the tech is ready to pull it off. I've never seen a 3D film before because I've been waiting for Avatar to blow me away!

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By theshadowalker 1 July 30, 2009 04:14:31 AM

Why does this fad briefly come back into fashion every freakin' generation? Does every generation really need to discover, for themselves, that it's a cool sounding idea ("3D!!!") that, in practice, is actually a headache-inducing gimmick (because, let's face it, the screen itself is still 2D) that quickly becomes tiresome? Then again, maybe I'm just getting old and cranky? Because I'm also tired of having to wear earplugs to the movies because the sound is turned up SO DAMN LOUD! (Or maybe Generation iPod is going prematurely deaf?)

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By benheck 1 July 30, 2009 04:15:32 AM

3D seems to be improving... I wear glasses and several years ago "Ghosts of the Abyss" was hard to watch (took them off for a lot of it)... Space Station 3D and Beowulf were pretty good and at Up after a few minutes of 3D trailers I was good to go. But then a funny thing happened. You just take the 3D for granted! Also yeah, re the glasses. Obviously they have a cost (probably around 75 cents), but yeah, in this "green-happy" world, why not give us a break for bringing pairs with us? The grocery stores do that if you bring back bags...

Re: Why the jury is still out on 3D cinema
Posted By FrenkyA9 1 July 31, 2009 01:21:16 AM

I went to see My Bloody Valentine 3D earlier this year and wore those special glasses. Very convincing effects, with axes flying through the theatre, exiting stuff. More horror in 3D please!
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Is 3D really the future of cinema? Is 3D really the future of cinema?
Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement