 "Photo: flickr.com user, dominicspics")
We all remember the cheesiness of 3D when we were kids (early 90's for me). The old red and blue glasses that were kind of 3D but we were kids and didn't care if the effect wasn't totally there. 3D was cool!
3D was always relegated to kids' things, like the occasional special on Nickelodeon but was never embraced by mainstream Hollywood, at least in the modern sense. We often only heard of the old monster movies that use to be in 3D from our parents, like Creature from the Black Lagoon. Well, it seems history is repeating itself once again and the old concept of 3D movies is making a comeback. But, in this economy is it actually going to work?
There is no hiding it, movie theaters are having trouble making money left and right. It's hard to justify paying $10.75 for a movie you're on the fence about seeing in the first place, then pay an insane amount for food and drinks. But then again, 3D adds the spectacle going to the movies use to represent. It gives people a reason to fork over the cash and makes them feel like they spent their money wisely.
This effect can wear off though. With the slew of 3D releases coming out in 2010, 3D could lose its luster and fall back into the same pattern of old.
"Avatar" is the first major 3D release in awhile, and the 3D is an essential part to the film. 3D should be limited to those films where it will enhance the movie, because people won't pay $12.75 for a film that was made with 3D for the hell of it. Judging by the trailers of upcoming releases "Clash of the Titans" and "How to Train Your Dragon" it seems like these movies will be enhanced by the 3D, so all is well.
Well, not really. The Jackass crew has discussed using the 3D technology of "Avatar" for their films. Jackass won't use the tech to its highest potential but the studio will charge more for the tickets. Putting a bad taste in the mouth of movie goers will deter them from giving 3D films a chance and the fad will be remembered as a failed attempt to renew 3D.
It's hard to say, "Don't make a movie in 3D," when it brings in so much money. "Alice in Wonderland" is going to be a massive success for Disney because it uses 3D in a great way (with help of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp).
The whole 3D fad is a trial and error, and hopefully the studios will learn quickly what works in 3D and what doesn't. Just like Activision is learning the hard way with the over saturation of the music gaming genre with "Guitar Hero," the studios need to learn saturation. Customers will only spend so much on 3D movies before they say, "That's it, I can't keep spending this much money." If Summit Entertainment intends to make the next "Twilight" movie in 3D, then the trend needs to end… NOW!
The future of 3D in movie theaters looks very bright, but the success of it is on the shoulders of DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Should studios make the discs 3D enabled? Would they have to go back to the hokey 3D glasses? It's certainly a cloudy future
While more and more TV's have 3D capabilities and videogame studios discuss releasing future titles in 3D, the option remains exclusively available in high-end TVs and this economic crisis is keeping many from buying those.
With "Avatar," it's only natural that 20th Century Fox will release a standard and 3D version, be it separate or on the same disc. But the problem of being cost effective comes to mind. Having to make standard and 3D in both DVD and Blu-Ray could get very expensive fast. The smarter idea would be to include 3D as an option on every disc. The problem of how to make 3D is still there, and won't be solved anytime soon.
The real enemy of 3D right now is the economy. Having a permanent increase in the cost of tickets and DVDs isn't something consumers want to see. People won't go to the movies as often if they know they are going to be spending more money every time. Unless the price increase can be made more appealing, at least in the case of DVD/Blu-Rays. An example of this would be how many Blu-Ray movies include a digital copy or a DVD copy in addition to the Blu-Ray copy. DVDs and Blu-Rays have seen a decrease in price in the last few years, which could mean the price of a 3D version could be just a few dollars more. Only time will tell.
The "3D-ifying" of old movies seems to be a possibility of the future too. I love you George Lucas, but the original "Star Wars" trilogy doesn't need to be in 3D. It doesn't add anything new and we don't need to fork over another $50 for a 3D version of the original trilogy. An example where the 3D effect worked was when Disney re-released "Toy Story 1 & 2." Both looked great and almost made it an entire new movie.
What's the moral of this three dimensional story? Take 3D in stride. It's easy to give into a fad and make everything 3D, but some self restraint will keep the market fresh and the consumer happy. And that's what the studio wants right?
is a member of the 
3 comments Log in to Comment
Secondly, I don’t see in any way how things like “Clash of the Titans” and “How to Train Your Dragon… in 3-D~!” are going to become better movies because things move into the screen (this is how they create depth, for those who don’t know. Nothing ever actually comes towards you; some things just appear farther away). Not to mention, both movies look like horrid pieces of action cinema aimed at 12 year olds, with “Dragon” having the benefit of actually being aimed completely at prepubescent children. To me, it’s just as bad as all the other movies being upconverted in post-production in order to charge extra for tickets (most of these films aren’t actually shot in 3-D, not even “Alice”. Most simply are computerized once Hollywood saw how much “Avatar” could get away with charging and saw production costs of glasses sharply dropping), things like “Green Lantern”, Zack Snyder’s “Sucker Punch” (never planned to be in 3-D in any way during all of shooting and production, just a half-assed shot at more money), the “Alien” prequel, even upcoming “Halloween” and “Twilight” movies (http://riskybusiness.blogs.thr.com/2010/02/11/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-3d-stephenie-meyer-summit-entertainment/... You ready to turn on this movement yet?) are being put through 3-D. No one has any artistic vision/merit/purpose towards it, it’s just to make you say “wow!” and pay more money. The awe, by the way, seems to drop off by the end of the trailers, like when I saw Alice tonight. 3-D trailers before 3-D movies are a terrible idea. Like showing the night’s top ten plays before a boring baseball game.
As for 3-D BluRay, that is an issue that has already been decided, and (shock!): it will require a good deal more purchases than you would guess for the consumer! (some proof: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10417449-1.html) You’ll need a new 3-D BluRay player (unless you own a $600 PS3 AND Sony decides to provide the update for free, still undecided by them), all 3-D movies will need to be repurchased in new, 3-D only editions (gonna need a couple different versions for “definitive” collection now) and you might even need a new TV if yours isn’t compatible (if it isn’t a massive LCD screen, by the way, it probably isn’t).
So I’m sorry, but as an elitist/snob/”film as art” geek, I see absolutely, positively, no use for 3-D. Not once have I seen it used for anything close to profound artistic purposes (the coolest shots in “Avatar” were literally small, burning leaves, in “Alice”, some heavy depth during a dinner party. Not exactly huge steps that brought the films to new levels). 3-d is nothing but more proof Hollywood is only interested in finding new ways to charge more money while trying to cater as much as possible to the action-figure crowd. I quote Spike Lee: “The movie industry is dominated by 12-year olds. I mean, I’m not trying to sound snobbish, but "American pie”? Sticking your **** in a pie? That’s a WHOLE movie? Come on." C’mon Hollywood, surprise us.
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now