While many movie makers believed that 3D was a fun gimmick for films, it was not looked at as a serious movie tool. Then in 2009, director James Cameron revealed to the world “Avatar”. A movie he had been working on for several years and was filming in 3D to bring audiences into a world, and make them experience it, as never before. By creating a world for new 3D technology, James Cameron changed the spectrum of movie making. With a tool that others saw as a gimmick, “Avatar” went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time. Suddenly studios wanted everything in 3D.
What’s The Difference
From zombie killers to the latest Disney/Pixar creation, “In 3D” has become a common phrase to audiences. However, some audience members have started to wonder if what they are seeing is worth the higher ticket price. ‘Clash of the Titans’ was one of the movies in 2010 where audiences complained about the quality of the 3D. It turns out the movie was not shot in 3D, but taken through a conversion process from its original form. In an interview with Reuters the films director, Louis Leterrier, explained what happened with the conversion. “Remember the technology was not ready, so it’s Warner Bros saying we are giving you the best of what we can do.”
Perhaps because of this Warner Brothers decided not to continue the 3D conversion process on “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part I”. This happened even though the movie was already being promoted as being in 3D. In a press release they said, ” Despite everyone’s best efforts, we were unable to convert the film in its entirety and meet the highest standards of quality. We do not want to disappoint fans who have long anticipated the conclusion of this extraordinary journey. ” This decision could have saved the movie, and franchise, from critical harm. It also gained the studio respect from many movie fans. (Myself included.) That’s not to say that it means audiences are still in love with 3D.
When 3D Attacks
When asked if seeing a movie advertised as “In 3D” would make her go and see it, Crescent Louise (La Habra, CA.) said, “I’m irritated with 3D. Unless it’s exactly like ‘Avatar’, I could care less.”
“Flash over substance. Give me old school with great video and thunderous sound,” is what Gary Kihs (Monterey, CA.) told me.
This backlash has not stopped studios from putting every possible title in 3D, and placing hope in those 3D titles being brought home as well.
3D For The Home
With 3D televisions, and 3D television programming having been rushed into homes, there are many companies who hope that it is not a fad this time around. However sales in early 2010 have shown that the biggest resistance from purchasers is the glasses. In March 2010 Yahoo Finance reported that, “.. the cheap, polarized spectacles handed out at movie theaters won’t work at home.” While people loved having friends come over to watch a program in High Definition, the same can’t be done for 3D televisions when there aren’t enough 3D glasses to pass around in a gathering. Some of the 3D televisions may come with a couple of pairs of glasses, but it can also cost upwards of $100.00+ per pair if you want to have more on hand.
In the rush to capitalize on the success of the biggest movie of all time did studios and manufacturers understand what it was that was engaging the audience? Good 3D will always make a great wow factor; but an engaging story and experience is what always brings a movie lover back over and over. With a large slate of titles for 2011 already being promoted as “In 3D”, ticket sellers may need to know if it was shot in 3D or converted. Even Harry Potter knew better than to mess with his audience.
Source: Yahoo Finance, Yahoo News, Reuters