Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Will bad movies kill the current 3-D craze?

This is topic Will bad movies kill the current 3-D craze? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006199

Posted by Michael Riley (Member # 5693) on 07-01-2010, 10:00 AM:

So the word is out on M. Night Shyamalan's latest film, "The Last Airbender", and much like all his other films since Sixth Sense, the word isn't a good one. All the early reviews for it are saying that the movie is absolutely awful from every conceivable perspective, with some people citing it as being amongst the worst films in recent memory. Much of the derision has to do with the lame post-production 3-D conversion that makes watching this otherwise awful movie that much worse.

That being said, I know there has been a lot of hype behind this movie, as the cartoon seems to be quite popular amongst the younger crowd. I know the 3-D conversion has more to do with the addtional profits, then any tangible benefits it may have to offer the audience, but do you think the film studios might be shooting themselves in the foot with this one? I know I remember reading the same thing about Clash of the Titans back in March, that the 3-D was just awful and made the movie unwatchable.

Do you think that if studios keep pumping out awful movies in 3-D like this that it will cause the novelty to fade away with audiences even faster than it would have otherwise?

I certainly don't mind the 3-D experience, although I don't feel that it adds anything to the film. It certainly worked well recently with Toy Story, Up, and How to Train Your Dragon. But all this psot production coversion nonsense is definitely going to water the whole thing down.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2010, 10:53 AM:

I think M. Night just had one really good film in him.

I think 3-D will prove to be a better thing if there is the occasional "event" film with great 3-D, than a constant stream of crap movies with a good one every now and then.

That said, the 3-D effects of "Despicable Me" are getting some online raves.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-01-2010, 11:02 AM:

3D did not kill this film. The acting killed this film, you can walk down the lumber aisle of any hardware store and get more emotion then you can out of these kids. They are horrible, and the dialogue was atrocious.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 07-01-2010, 02:44 PM:

I think an issue that is just as likely to kill interest in 3D movies is simply lousy 3D. This "moving viewmaster" approach just sucks. The best I've seen was "Alice in Wonderland" but even that lacked the visual quality of film actually shot with two lenses. Films from 1952 have better 3D imagery than most of what they are releasing today.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-01-2010, 04:42 PM:

I wish something would please kill the 3D craze...

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 07-01-2010, 05:43 PM:

A little film called "Step Up: 3D" will only prove to strengthen 3D's power. I plan on seeing it. Drunk as hell...

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-01-2010, 06:24 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think M. Night just had one really good film in him.

I'd say two...and maybe one other just 'good' one.

This one is dead in the water.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-01-2010, 07:23 PM:

A staggering 92% "rotten" on the tomato-meter.

My favorite critic quote (Roger Ebert):

"The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented."

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-01-2010, 09:24 PM:

quote: John Wilson
This one is dead in the water.

I think that line was probably already used for his second-to-previous film.

If it wasn't, it should have been.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 07-01-2010, 09:32 PM:

Good Night, M. Night.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2010, 09:51 PM:

quote: Scott D. Neff
A little film called "Step Up: 3D" will only prove to strengthen 3D's power. I plan on seeing it. Drunk as hell...

Does "drunk as hell" mean passed out? If so, then yeah that might actually earn a star in the review.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2010, 11:10 PM:

I think on Shyamalan's movies, his name is getting smaller and smaller with each release.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-02-2010, 12:14 AM:

I thought that Step Up 3D had already come and gone. it seems like many movies these days are 3D and they all seem to want to come out at the same time, so it is hard for me to keep track of what came and went. I wish the FAME remake was in 3D. I also want to see a black and white foreign language hoity-toity art film in 3D.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-02-2010, 02:02 AM:

Maybe watching his films at 3:00 am is the trick to liking them. I thought Airbender was pretty good but I could have been in a daze and I watched it in 2-D like all not shot with 3-D cameras should be viewed.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-03-2010, 07:22 AM:

I'm just curious as to how "Inception" would work out in 3D [Big Grin]

I do think being slightly tipsy is the key to Step Up 3D earning a any stars.

I made my husband watch the first Twilight movie (just to see what would happen), ten minutes into it he poured himself a double shot and announced he might have to drink the movie better. Apparently even that failed.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-03-2010, 08:42 AM:

I dunno....I got a report from an exhibitor that his 3D grosses were actually on par with a competitor's 2D grosses on Toy Story 3. That was not the case in the past (and it isn't a theatre quality thing...they are similar in quality with the theatre that has the 3D having more of an edge in overall quality of the complex/presentation.

I'm thinking that it is starting to show that 3D isn't necessary or desirable for some films and some markets. Also, as more 3D screens come on line, as I have predicted, the "pie" will start to even back out again as everyone has it...it just becomes a more expensive way to show the same movie.

I don't doubt that 3D can be a benefit to some movies or sequences but it definitely does not improve all movies and can even be a distraction to most.

Steve

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-03-2010, 09:40 AM:

Variety reported that Toy Story 3 is the third movie in a row to show declining 3d ticket sales [thumbsup]

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 07-03-2010, 11:50 AM:

quote: Elise Brandt
I'm just curious as to how "Inception" would work out in 3D

I can't remember where, but I read that WB tested a 3D conversion on Inception and they didn't like the results. Nolan himself has said he doesn't like how 3D looks onscreen right now and does not want to do 3D, but at the same time realizes that studios will force it on him for future films

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 07-03-2010, 03:15 PM:

I see the technology changing to the point where it prevails more at home than in theaters.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-06-2010, 12:44 PM:

Home 3DTV will certainly keep it alive and drive the studios to keep producing; they are not going to want to give up the 3D BluRay sales.

The thing that can't be ignored in evaluating the playing field of 3D is the premium $$ cost per ticket. That really skews the public's decision-making and the extra ticket price will always impact that.

If the playing field were even in terms of the economics for the movie-going public, 3D should be no more of an issue as color or scope is. No one says, scope doesn't add anything to a film or it does, it is just a tool that the filmmaker uses at his/her discression. No one gives it a second thought -- it is no longer a marketing tool, only aesthetic one. It is transparant.

3D, other than the glasses issue, if there were no premium charge, would be the same as scope or even color or stereo sound. And there are dogs of pictures make in scope and color and stereo sound as well as the best blockbusters....so what? The bad ones don't stop filmmakers from shooting in scope or mixing in multichannel sound. It eventually will be the same with 3D.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-06-2010, 08:56 PM:

I think things will evolve to where 3D is used on pictures that can REALLY benefit from it (Avatar, "some" animated movies") so there will be maybe 4 or 5 huge "event" movies a year that are in 3D. But you're right, there will always be "dogs" no matter what the format.

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-06-2010, 10:40 PM:

I think the right mix would be about one 3D movie a month.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 07-07-2010, 02:12 AM:

quote: Matt Fields
I think the right mix would be about one 3D movie a month.

I agree wholeheartedly.

As more and more 3D movies come out, the "event" status of those releases diminishes with each release- and with that the rationale for the surcharge.

By over exploiting 3D, the studios will reduce the "wow" factor and the desire for patrons to fork over the extra $$$...and hasten the demise of 3D as a premium product.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-07-2010, 03:12 AM:

..and as usual, more CGA features coming out in the 3D option pile for the rest of the year.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-07-2010, 06:37 AM:

From the sampling of people I've talked to, most movie goers seem relatively happy with The Last Airbender. On my theatre's web site it has a 3 star rating with 22 votes (most movies get less than 50 votes).

The only thing I can't comment on is the reaction to 3D. I have had a lot of people asking for it in 3D, but I haven't had a single person leave when they found out it wasn't in 3D. But I did have one person see it when they found out it was not in 3D.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 07-07-2010, 02:39 PM:

Roger Ebert seems to think so.
Linky

Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
Mario Anzouni / Reuters-Corbis

Avatar director James Cameron is reflected in an audience member's 3-D glasses during a panel discussion in San Diego

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they’re only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O’s you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics’ case, point by point:

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. “When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM? Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are “intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.” Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don’t know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it’s the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don’t mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or “fake IMAX” for original IMAX. What’s the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS. These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don’t show a movie in 3-D, they can’t have it in 2-D. Although there’s room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D. In my review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: “Explain to your kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific.” And it did. The “3-D” was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders. Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into 3-D, called it “cheeseball,” adding: “You just snookered the movie audience.” He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs.

8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D. Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.

Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.

Even Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it’s worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do “fake 3-D” better than others have. My argument would nevertheless be: Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why add a distraction? Obviously, to return to the No. 2 cash cow in movie history and squeeze out more milk.

I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe. Then Scorsese announced that his 2011 film The Invention of Hugo Cabret, about an orphan and a robot, will be in 3-D. Well, Scorsese knows film, and he has a voluptuous love of its possibilities. I expect he will adapt 3-D to his needs. And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film prehistoric cave paintings in France, to better show off the concavities of the ancient caves. He told me that nothing will “approach” the audience, and his film will stay behind the plane of the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and 3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with the paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric artist standing in the cavern might have.

9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.

What Hollywood needs is a “premium” experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I’ve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it’s 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven’t seen it have no idea how good it is. I’ve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D.

I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can’t get at home. But they’re betting on the wrong experience.

Ebert is the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times.

JJ

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-07-2010, 03:25 PM:

Mr Ebert got the surcharge wrong. It's around $3 in most places. He wouldn't know that as he probably hasn't bought a movie ticket in quite a long time.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2010, 03:37 PM:

He got the whole surcharge concept wrong. He says:

quote: Josh Jones
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think?

He seems to think the surcharge is only to pay for digital projectors, when it is actually meant to pay for the glasses, cleaning the glasses, collecting the glasses, and the additional equipment which VPF payments don't cover (if the theatre even gets such payments). There's also the idea of obsolescence to think of...he seems to think equipment will last forever. I wish people who know nothing about theatre operations would quit writing about theatre operations.

I'm usually an Ebert fan but he got this point completely wrong. Also I hate the term "slap on."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-07-2010, 04:39 PM:

His point is that the 3D surcharge is unnecessary and stupid. Regal theaters tell customers that the surcharge is for the "experience". Ummm.... OK. The surcharge is not worth it. As for obsolescence, that is the theater owner's fault for buying into digital. Should my theater introduce a surcharge just in case an intermittent movement goes out, and amp or speaker blows or any of that? No, that's just stupid.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 07-07-2010, 05:20 PM:

Not if it's 3AM and you want to get the fuck out of the theatre and go home [Wink]

It's painfully obvious to me that 3D interest is going to wane. Why does this industry keep repeating the same silly mistake of using this gimmick?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-07-2010, 05:34 PM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
It's painfully obvious to me that 3D interest is going to wane. Why does this industry keep repeating the same silly mistake of using this gimmick?

$$$$

or rather, $$$$$ to those selling it, not so much the "industry" as a whole ...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-07-2010, 05:35 PM:

quote: Jonathan Smith
Not if it's 3AM and you want to get the fuck out of the theatre and go home

Not sure if you are responding to me or not. If you are, I am baffled.

Posted by Jonathan Smith (Member # 5609) on 07-07-2010, 05:53 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Not sure if you are responding to me or not. If you are, I am baffled.

No, Joe. I forgot to put a quote, was replying to Darryl's comment about his liking movies more really really early in the morning watching them.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-07-2010, 07:00 PM:

With Real-D you have to say the upcharge is "for the experience". If you told the truth and said "it's to pay for the glasses" people would bring their own. Or if you REALLY told the truth and said "it's a contrived way for us to extract more money from you to see inferior 3D conversions like Clash of the Titans", well you get the idea.

Saying the upcharge is "for the experience" is fine if the 3D is done correctly and all that.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-08-2010, 12:57 AM:

Saying that is fine, but the upcharge is not fine. Anyone who pays it has been had.