3-D and The Evolution of Spectacle
(This is a paper I wrote for a class about my thoughts concerning 3-D, not my typical post but I thought it was pretty interesting and raised some points about 3-D that may have been overlooked.)
When sound, color, widescreen, and other defining technologies first emerged it took audiences time to adapt and widely accept these new technological progressions; now that these tools have become film industry standards, no one doubts their use. Many wonder if 3-D is set to join these other contemporary staples of cinema, but audiences as well as film critics question it as a gimmick that adds nothing to the experience. Complaints about 3-D arise from everything to the glasses that have to be worn, to the higher ticket prices, but never has there been such a component of film that effectively splits spectators down the middle: you either are for 3-D or against it. Despite all of this 3-D does not look like it will fade out, with auteur directors like James Cameron (Avatar in 2009) and Martin Scorsese (Hugo in 2011) making pushes with their respective films to show how this new sensory filled technology can best be utilized. Major studios present 3-D as an event of spectacle that has to be seen in theaters to really behold the “perfect” cinematic experience. In 2009 Cameron’s Avatar effectively changed what was thought possible with 3-D and computer animations by crafting a world of seamless realism and audiences made it the highest grossing film of all time. Through James Cameron’s technological innovations, the high profitability of 3-D, and greater spectacle, we as audiences would not be seeing this complete reemergence of 3-D that has occurred the last few years in the film industry.
The use of 3-D in films and television has been around since as early as the 1950s (with Hitchcock even making a crude-looking 3-D film), and was employed during the beginning of the 1980s to a large extent. Several horror films during this era like Jaws 3-D (1983) and Amityville 3-D (1983)used early stereoscopic (3-D imaging) practices that emphasized off the screen effects to such a large degree that audiences tended to be completely annoyed. Watchers came away feeling nauseous and unenthused about 3-D; almost as quickly as it had come, the craze over 3-D films that began in the early 1980s had disintegrated by 1983 with the release of Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (a 3-D film with a huge budget that accrued little success). The technology of 3-D during this period of time was exercised in a way that hurt viewers’ eyes and its utilization waslooked at as a ploy that did little to add to the quality of a film; this essentially turned the mainstream’s focus away from 3-D during the 1990s. 3-D films were still being made but only were released in special venues like at theme parks (Honey, I Shrunk the Audience at Disneyland for example) or IMAX; this severed 3-D from cinematic importance. This all changed in the early 2000s as the expansion of higher quality computer animations and the process used to capture video (digital recordings as opposed to film) changed dramatically.
In 2003, James Cameron along with Vince Pace (a cinematographer with an engineering background) developed a digital video camera that allows the user to shoot entire feature films in stereoscopic 3-D; it became known as the Fusion camera system. This camera has eradicated older methods of 3-D creation that involved celluloid film and has brought stereoscopic imagery into contemporary times. The first film to be shot using this very expensive form of digital imagery was Cameron’s Ghosts of the Abyss (2003), a documentary that explores the Titanic in IMAX 3-D. Legendary film critic Roger Ebert, a heavy opponent of 3-D, suggests that the film’s main selling point (being shot in 3-D) is moot, “3-D will never be ready for primetime, it is unnecessary and often distracts audiences with the process as opposed to the content,”he even goes on to say that despite the technological achievement of the film audiences “are not missing much by seeing the film without 3-D.” The beauty and cohesiveness of the 3-D innovation continues to be downplayed by skeptics (this still occurs even today) who approach it as a gimmick instead of looking at what is really being accomplished: an entire new stimulation through cinematic viewing. Over the coming years, the Fusion camera system would be employed in several children’ films like Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over (2003)and The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005), none of which had any lasting appeal. Essentially 3-D engineering was relegated to computer animated kids movies (The Polar Express and Chicken Little in the mid-2000s) where it continued to advance and build on innovations in technology. Regardless of this fact, there continued to be a great interest surrounding 3-D films with audiences as well as major studios. One such studio, 20th Century Fox, believed so much in 3-D and Cameron’s vision of what was possible with the new tech, that it greenlit a budget of $200 million in 2007 so that Avatar (Cameron’s brainchild from 1994) could finally be produced.
In 2009, with the studios reeling from the economic woes of the recent recession, Avatar premiered on December 18th in America. Most film critics lauded its brilliant use of 3-D, even Roger Ebert who stated, “Cameron’s iteration [of 3-D] is the best I’ve seen—and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has too.” Previous opponents of 3-D have begun to see how it can be effectively used in a way that cinematically enhances the experience while at the same time not destroying the content with senseless uses of the stereoscopic technology. The film went on to dominate the box office for the next seven weeks and managed to become the highest grossing film of all time, passing the $2 billion mark for the first time in history. Avatar has become the standard for which 3-D can be evaluated, as no 3-D film has been able to live up to its overall success (as of late 2011) or been able to display stereoscopic imagery so tactfully. In order to ensure that his vision would be represented how he intended it, Cameron “decided that until he felt that technology was where it needed to be and that enough theaters were able to screen 3-D films-- he would hold off on the project,” but work by Peter Jackson with motion capture abilities employed in characters like Gollum and King Kong “created the tipping point and showed what was technically possible,” (Jenson). This finally allowed audiences to see how far 3-D had actually come, technology wise and thematically and brought it back to the mainstream.
The floodgates opened and in 2010, major studios buoyed by the success of Avatar latched onto the 3-D movement in order to profit off its success. The distributers continued to promote 3-D as a cinematic practice that makes going to see a film more momentous. In order to save money and cash in on the craze, studios began converting 2-D films into 3-D films. Some prime examples of these converted films include Alice and Wonderland (2010) and Clash of the Titans (2010), “whose 3-D elements are so [underdeveloped], that they look like they’re floating around on opposing planes of flatness, demonstrating just how shallow these conversions really are” (Kermode). Audiences easily were able to tell the difference between films shot in 3-D and those converted in postproduction, as the disparity in quality is unequivocally apparent. Studios are completely enthralled with the profit potentials of 3-D films and their ability to create a market for something that only can be seen in theaters (they haven’t been able to do this for a very long time). Skyrocketing movie budgets have been offset by the higher 3-D ticket prices incurred on audiences. Because these studios are able to charge a higher price for these premium tickets, 3-D’s continued success is pivotal for the industry’s financial aspects. Interestingly enough in 2009 (the year Avatar came out and claims of a “3-D revolution” started spreading), “movie ticket sales rose 10% over 2008 and for the first time passed DVD sales, which dropped a staggering 13% over the same time span” (Block, NPR). This trend clearly shows the affect 3-D is having on the box office, which has been helped by the record number of films using the technology.
In 2008 there were three measly 3-D films that were distributed in a wide release to theaters. As of late 2011, there have been more than thirty 3-D films produced alone. Despite this influx, what film industry observers have discovered during 2011 is a considerable decline in audience interest for 3-D. Evidence from such films as Cars 2 (only 37% watched in 3-D showings) and Toy Story 3 (similar margins), show a clear disparity between the people who actually watch the films in 3-D or 2-D, with the vast majority choosing the latter. Most analysts are now beginning to see the implementation of 3-D technology as discouraging people from going to movie theatres at all. This conclusion is all the more upsetting (for 3-D) based on the structure currently being used in which “3-D's more-money-from-fewer-people approach has simply led to less money from even fewer people” (Gray). Lots of the leading proponents of 3-D film like James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, and Jeffrey Katzenberg blame the “oversaturation of the 3-D market with inferior films [(like Clash of the Titans)] that convert in postproduction to the 3-D format, which has led audiences to conclude that it is not worth seeing for a greater expense” (Reynolds). Quality with 3-D has always been an issue (along with its necessity), but this technology has not been the only one faced with diversity.
When synchronized sound was first introduced to the public (1900 in Paris) it was unrefined and difficult to achieve with the technical prowess of the early 1900s. It took over thirty years for sound to become fully incorporated into Hollywood (1930s), and even then outside of America many wondered if it would ruin the virtues of soundless cinema altogether. Color integration into film was lambasted in almost the same way; critics thought that it was unessential and just distracted from the narrative and content being presented on screen. The parallels between 3-D, sound, and color are undeniable, with 3-D constantly being panned for what it might take away from the overall film experience instead of looking at what it adds. Would you as a viewer argue that sound and color have damaged cinema? Of course not, but there were once people who thought this. In order for something to become normality it has to be practiced over and over again until the mainstream begins to adopt it. Even if 3-D has been around since the 1950s (early developmental stages), this resurgence we are witnessing in the last few years is because the technology has finally been able to catch up to the design. The design of 3-D has always been about creating environments or special effects that are unattainable in “2-D,” while at the same time exuding realism and adding new stimulation. The methods with which we achieve this design has remained the only factor that evolves as time passes.
However one chooses to look at the evolution of 3-D, it is quite apparent that despite controversy surrounding the technology, the advantages that come with 3-D (experiencing a depth to an environment) outweigh the negatives. Opponents of 3-D only have to look at Avatar or the just released Hugo to understand what the technology can really do to enhance the movie-going experience. With Avatar’s luscious CGI (computed generated imagery) environments and eye-popping visuals working in complete synchronization with the 3-D, Cameron was able to give audiences a small taste of what is possible if the right people use the technology correctly. As more and more films are produced using the Fusion camera system, the quality of 3-D will begin to separate itself from the cash-hungry, major studio “fake 3-D” conversions. When audiences begin to take note of this separation, more 3-D films will be created the “right” way and 3-D will reach the lofty industry standards that color, sound, and widescreen fought so hard to obtain. As the director of Coraline (2009) Henry Selick states “film has [always had] the ability to give comfort, and like many other tools in filmmaking—lighting, performance, and just about everything—3-D is now a powerful tool to influence emotion” (Cohen). This is the 3-D revolution that will end the outcry over gimmicks.
Alves, Joe, dir. Jaws 3-D. Universal Pictures, 1983. Film.
Block, Melissa. "Movie Ticket Sales Surpass DVD Numbers." NPR. (2010): n. page. Web. 19 Mar. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122226393>.
Cameron, James, dir. Avatar. 20th Century Fox, 2009. Film.
Cameron, James, dir. Ghosts of the Abyss. Buena Vista Distribution, 2003. Film.
Cohen, David. "Filmmakers like S3D's emotional wallop." Variety. 15 Sept. 2009: n. page. Web. 19 Mar. 2011. <http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118008671?refCatId=1009>.
Dindal, Mark, dir. Chicken Little. Disney Animations, 2005. Film.
Ebert, Roger. "Avatar." Chicago Sun Times. (2009): Web. 19 Mar. 2011. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998>.
Ebert, Roger. "Ghosts of the Abyss." Chicago Sun Times. (2003): Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030411/REVIEWS/304110303>.
Fleischar, Richard, dir. Amityville 3-D. Orion Pictures, 1983. Film.
Gray, Brandon. "June Sees Box Office Dip." Box Office Mojo. (2011): Web. 1 Mar. 2011. <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3201&p=.htm>.
Jenson, Jeff, and James Cameron. "Great Expectations Q&A." Entertainment Weekly. 15 Jan 2007: n. page. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.
Johnson, Lamont, dir. Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone . Columbia Pictures, 1983. Film.
Kermode, Mark. "No, your eyes aren't deceiving you – 3D really is a con." Guardian. (2010): n. page. Web. 19 Mar. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/11/3d-avatar-hollywood>
Kleiser, Randall, dir. Honey, I Shrunk the Audience!. Disney, 1999. Film.
Lasseter, John, dir. Cars 2. Walt Disney Pictures, 2011. Film.
Leterrier, Louis, dir. Clash of the Titans. Warner Brothers, 2010. Film
Reynolds, Simon. "3D movies - Have you had enough of them?." Digital Spy. (2011): Web. 19 Mar. 2011. <http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/at-the-movies/a324805/poll-3d-movies-have-you-had-enough-of-them.html>.
Rodriguez, Robert, dir. Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over. Dimension Films, 2003. Film.
Rodriguez, Robert, dir. The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D. Dimension Films, 2005. Film.
Selick, Henry , dir. Coraline. Focus Features, 2009. Film.
Scorese, Martin, dir. Hugo. Paramount, 2011. Film.
Unkrich, Lee, dir. Toy Story 3. Walt Disney Pictures, 2010. Film.
Zemeckis, Robert, dir. The Polar Express. Warner Brothers, 2004. Film.
