the 3D conversation continues...

A little while ago Devin Faraci from CHUD.com wrote an interesting piece titled: "The Death of 3D" whereby he outlined the differences between 3D then, and 3D now, and predicted an early demise for the format despite its inarguable popularity at the box office.

Many have accused 3D for being a fad, or a gimmick, but some recent films have shown us that 3D, if used skillfully, can enhance a viewing experience. Films such as AVATAR, UP, CORALINE, and more recently HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, have shown that 3D can give a films visuals more depth and dimension, putting the viewer inside exotic worlds, instead of throwing shit at them.

Faraci admits that 3D is now more sophisticated today than it's ever been, but recalls the fact that this kind of premium experience is not new to Hollywood. He writes:

"the first half of Hollywood's first decade saw big blockbusters coming out in roadshow fashion - big gala events that had elevated ticket prices, assigned seats, commemorative programs."

The overall goal of the roadshow, previous attempts at 3D, and the new 3D is to win the audience back.

The internet has seemingly disrupted Hollywoods business, and in an attempt to compete with torrents and other illegal downloads, Hollywood is offering an experience that can't be replicated at home. Yet.

Written upon the release of Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND, Faraci's piece was a response to the films poor 3D. He makes an interesting point comparing the difference between 3D films today, and 3D films in the past, and the difference is that now genre films are king. Whereas 50 years ago films like AVATAR would have been considered B-movie fare (and let's be honest, some would say that now) the sci-fi/fantasy/adventure genres are mainstream now.

So, genre films in 3D are making a ton of money--when and how do they die?

Faraci predicts "bad movies" will be 3D's undoing. That is, films like ALICE IN WONDERLAND that are not only bad by themselves, but made worse by poor 3D and higher ticket sales.

Faraci is convinced that audience won't tolerate these bad 3D films for long, and eventually they'll get wise to Hollywood's attempts to scam more money from their pockets.

I'm not so sure about this. I, for one, am not blessed with the ability of foresight, but I think the importance of 3D at the box office is being overplayed. Moreover, audiences are rarely dissuaded by bad films.

With ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I think people wanted to see Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's take on the material, and the 3D was secondary. Certainly the higher ticket prices contributed to the overall box-office, but I believe the film would have been equally successful without the 3D.

This past weekend saw the release of CLASH OF THE TITANS. A remake of a much beloved (although not great) film, it too was released in 3D, and managed to make 61.4 million, shattering Easter Weekend records. Many are contributing its success to the films 3D (more on that later) but I think it has more to do with the property and release date. For instance, Zack Snyder's 300 was released on March 9th, 2007 and opened at 70.8 million.

Since the release of 300, early spring has proven to be a good time to release big budget fare to a pre-summer audience. Actually, it could be argued that V FOR VENDETTA was the first film to mark this trend in 2006, as it made 25.6 million and was ranked #1.

Interestingly, V FOR VENDETTA, 300, WATCHMEN, and now CLASH OF THE TITANS have all been released by Warner Bros, and with the exception of WATCHMEN (which made a respectable 55.2 million and was ranked #1 opening weekend) all of the films have proven to be successful releases.

Obviously Warner Bros. has figured out that you can push what are typically big summer releases into March (remember CLASH OF THE TITANS was initially set for a March release, but was delayed in order to rework the film into 3D) and make some money.

This trend which was created by the unexpected success of 300 has caught on with other studios, such as Disney and Dreamworks Animation. Last year, Dreamworks' MONSTERS vs. ALIENS fared well at the box office, and as we already know, Disney's ALICE IN WONDERLAND has done well for itself this year.

Whether or not these films were successful because they were in 3D is hard to say. If films like V FOR VENDETTA, 300, and WATCHMEN made decent money without the 3D, perhaps their success, and the recent 3D success' have more to do with timing and which properties are being made into films.

For instance, Dreamworks Animation, who did well last March with MONSTERS vs. ALIENS didn't achieve an equal measure of success with this years HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON. DRAGON is doing fine, but at its current rate, it will be the least successful Dreamworks Animation production in terms of earnings.

Interestingly, despite its amazing use of 3D, many are calling HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON Dreamworks Animation's best film to date, and it currently sits at a 98% Fresh rating at rottentomatoes.com.

What does all this tell us? Well, for one thing, 3D will not automatically generate money. After AVATAR, the assumption studios are making is that anything that has 3D branded on it may be achieve greater success than its 2D counterpart. While its too early to call it, I think the films themselves have more to do with the success of 3D, than the actual 3D itself.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND and CLASH OF THE TITANS are well known properties, it makes sense that they would do well. That said, these films weren't shot in 3D. They used a conversion technique which creates layers on the original 2D image, giving the illusion of depth.

It looks like shit, and people can tell the difference.

Whether or not lousy 3D will be detrimental to 3D films in general is once again, hard to say. Devin Faraci believes that 3D might be undone by audiences associating bad films with 3D. I hate to admit it, but there is no shortage of bad films performing well at the box office. The success of a film is not measured by its quality, but by its marketing.

I can't imagine bad films leading to the death of 3D. Along the way, there will be some good ones (we've seen plenty already) and a whole lot of bad ones, which is the case with most films as it is.

I think 3D is here to stay. It won't die, but it won't decide a films success either. It'll become a technique some filmmakers will adopt, and others won't. I can't imagine a day where audiences outright stop seeing 3D films, much like audiences will never stop seeing Superhero films.

3D is popular at the moment, and while it's impossible for it to retain its popularity forever, it will stick around, in some form or another.

Faraci writes:

"It'll take a few years for the audience to lose interest in 3D, and the lifespan of the fad could be extended if Hollywood simply dedicates itself to doing 3D well and earning the extra ticket price"

This is said very facetiously, as though Hollywood hasn't done anything to earn the extra ticket price. I disagree. Even pre-AVATAR, there have been some mighty successful films produced in 3D--films like BEOWULF, CORALINE, and UP. These films can stand on their own, despite the 3D, but seeing them in that Third-Dimension is completely worth a few extra bucks, because it's done well.

At this point, all we can do is speculate. Should be interesting to watch how this thing unfolds over the next couple of years...

--Alex

hollywood sucks, apparently

Cynicism is easy, especially online where countless other anonymous cynics are unwaveringly declaring "this sucks" and "that sucks".

Perhaps it's indeed the anonymity, but something about the internet attracts cynics--especially in terms of film culture. If it's not the stereotypical internet film critic disregarding the "Hollywood Machine" it's their readers who try to out-hate each other in the message boards.

Obviously this isn't the case for every film fan on the internet, but the cynical voice is most often the loudest, because it exists as an extreme, and the extreme are noisy.

Despite my best efforts, the cynics and their cries of "Fuck Michael Bay" are hard to ignore and I'm growing very weary of their dominant presence online.

Yes, it often appears as though Hollywood is disinterested quality, artful productions, but ultimately it's a business. When teenagers are the ones going to the movies, it's easy to make dumb shit with gratuitous explosions and remakes to make a quick, guaranteed buck.

I dislike remakes as much as the next guy, but they sell. I too want more mature, original content from Hollywood, but at the same time, originality is hard to sell, and maturity more so.

Adults really don't go to the movies anymore, and therefore, a huge market has been lost. It doesn't make sense for Hollywood to do anything but to play it safe for the most part.

For the most part.

After everything I just wrote, it's easy to see why people are disenfranchised with Hollywood these days. It's fucking frustrating. I get it.

Still, cynicism is easy. It's easy to criticize Hollywood for what it doesn't do, but it's important to take a step back and recognize the fact that Hollywood still unleashes some great movies.

Look at 2009 for instance: Up, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, A Single Man, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, District 9, Drag Me to Hell, The Informant!, Where the Wild Things Are, A Serious Man, Star Trek, and Avatar.

Now, all of these films may not be your cup of tea, but they are all undeniably interesting, or innovative. Some are based on books, others are original creations. Some of them are masterworks.

The point is: Hollywood doesn't suck. All of the time.

Anyone who looks at that list of films and doesn't find something to like just doesn't like movies, I'm sorry to say. Often, it seems like the cynics I'm talking about love trashing movies more than they actually love watching them.

Don't be a contrarian for the sake of it. Don't mistrust Hollywood because they are "mainstream" and allow Michael Bay to make movies. And don't worry, you're not a conformist if Hollywood makes a movie you like. Thank them for it.

I'd like to see more positivity among film fans. If you don't like something, there's no need to be negative and decry hate for the machine--there are enough people doing that already.

I'm a fond believer that if you don't have anything to say, shut up. I realize the internet has given everybody a voice, which is great, but often that voice is reduced to negative ramblings and hateful remarks. At this point, you're not impressing anybody with your smart-ass, facetious, pseudo-clever comments blaming the system for why your love of movies has dissipated.

Don't blame the system, blame yourself. Cynicism only allows you to see the worse in things. If you're not enjoying anything Hollywood puts out, perhaps your perception has been impaired. I'm just saying.

Next time you come across someone online (or in person) being cynical, try to tip the scales by saying something positive. I'm not saying we should let Hollywood off the hook (fuck no) but the Hollywood Hate is getting old.

Sorry, it got old. Ten years ago. Let's try to tip the scales and not let the cynical voice be the dominant one any longer.

--Alex

novelty and the iPad

While I don't have one yet, fairly soon the iPad will be held by these hands and movies will be viewed on it.

This notion is mixed with equal parts enthusiasm and skepticism. Thus far, no piece of mobile technology has changed the way I prefer to watch movies. While convenient, most agree that watching films on such a small scale is not the preferred way to go about watching JAWS. That said, however, something needs to be said about being able to access JAWS wherever you are in the world, providing there's a 3G network, and/or Wi-Fi in the neighborhood.

We now live in an age where owning media doesn't serve the same purpose. Previously, one would buy a DVDs in order to access a favorite film whenever they pleased, available for viewing on a whim. The Internet has ostensibly eliminated the need for a physical, tangible product, and given us the ability to access our favorite films whenever we want, wherever we want, providing we have the latest and greatest tech. This week, that tech is the iPad.

Even before it hit shelves, one of the selling points of the iPad was the alleged "great" movie watching experience. With Netflix 'Watch Instantly' available to US customers, cinephiles can gain instantaneous access to their beloved films through Wi-Fi or 3G, with little to no load times. And if streaming films wasn't enough, they can also rent and/or buy them from iTunes. Sounds great.

The reason for my skepticism is such: I've been excited about watching movies on something other than a TV or Theater before, and every time, I've been let down. But it's my fault.

The prospect of watching movies on my phone was once appealing, but I did it a couple times and the novelty seemed to wear off. Fast. This is the problem, I think. Novelty.

It's a novel idea to have perpetual access to your favorite films, geography be damned, but without a proper viewing experience, the novelty loses substance, and just becomes a cool idea, without any real gravitas.

Movies being such widely consumed media, it's understandable why so much effort goes into getting them into every format possible. People want to access them any way they can. The downside, however, is that while a quick buck can be made, all your left with is novelty, and a shit viewing experience.

Films are made in 35-70mm (or HD) for a reason: They are meant to be seen big. While smaller TVs have sufficed in the past, we see bigger and better TVs with sharper resolutions hitting the market annually in order to simulate the theater experience at home. It seems to be what people want.

Contrariwise, people also seem to want movies on their mobile devices. It's what's novel, not necessarily practical, or conducive of a great viewing experience.

We will always watch movies they way they are meant to be seen, be it at home or at the cinema. Big and loud.

What changes is our access to movies, and this trouble with novelty. We can access films on our laptops, our phones, and our iPads, and while novel, it's not as exciting as we make it out to be. Or hope it to be.

We always want the next thing, but we let novelty disrupt our judgement. Novelty doesn't necessarily mean good, even though it can be refreshing.

Though, I suppose it's nice to know I can watch JAWS whenever I want, almost anywhere in the world.

-- Alex