“It took only two years for sound movies to become conventional and replace silent films, but 25 years for color to replace black-and-white films after Gone With the Wind in 1939,” said James Cameron in a recent interview with The Korea Times. “The 3D transition won’t take 25 years – too many market forces are involved now.”
The sound/color correlation has been made over and over in regards to 3D technology, but no matter who you are or what side of the issue you come down on, the reality is that 3D is not a fad. For better or for worse, it’s part of the evolution of filmmaking, and after 100 years of doing things pretty much the same way if it wasn’t 3D it’d be something else.
You can try to make jokes about Smell-o-Vision and Feel-Around and D-Box but the truth behind these gimmicks (real or otherwise) is that none of them are critical elements of cinema – they stand apart from the mise-en-scène, pure “movie-ness”, if you will, which is something you absolutely cannot do without in a motion picture. I’d even go so far as to argue that sound is a gimmick and completely unrelated to the language of cinema. If you remove the soundtrack from a film, you still have a film. It adds to the experience and enhances it, but it’s not a
necessary component.* Filmmaking is a visual medium. Stereoscopy is a visual tool, and supersedes sound as a natural element of the visual storytelling process.
Stereoscopy has been around for almost as long as photography, and the technology behind it is only now becoming sophisticated enough to enable filmmakers to really do amazing and subtle things with it. Audiences are ready for something new, and a guy like Cameron should know.
Another guy who knows is Sandy Climan, CEO of 3ality Digital. They’re the folks behind the stereography in U2 3D and in the past two years have cut lucrative 3D production deals with NBC, Fox Sports, and Sky TV.
In the wake of Roger Ebert’s latest anti-3D rant I was curious to hear a second opinion, so I contacted Sandy and asked him straight up: What’s the point of 3D?
That’s like asking why black and white? Why color? It doesn’t matter as long as you’re using technology to elevate the storytelling process.
The real question is whether or not creators will find ways to use 3D in ways that impact the audience. It could be in a narrative film or a documentary or a sports broadcast. That’s the creative element. James Cameron’s just scratched the surface, and now we’re going to have some of the greatest cinematic thinkers like Spielberg, Scorsese, and Herzog bringing you new ways to experience 3D. I say wait until we see what the creators can bring us.
The other thing is that once you see certain things in 3D, you’ll never want to go back to 2D. It’s not just that there’s a more immersive quality to the entertainment, it’s that the actual presentation is different than 2D. You can look at the two side by side and the visual language, the way its been edited and shot, is actually different.
If you’re a purist you can argue about whether or not a piece of entertainment will be enhanced by 3D, but part of that is personal taste, which has nothing to do with the filmmaker’s intent to create a better piece of entertainment.
If we have to complain that conversion does the film a disservice, that’s more a complaint about the quality of the conversion than it is about the fact that its been converted. I’m not a big fan of colorization, but I am a big fan of letting creators re-conceive their films in 3D because ultimately it’s another creative effort on their part, and a lot of the films being converted are being done in conjunction with the artists that made them.
Audiences have put up with so much bad 3D so long, but I think we’re at the point now where the quality is so high that people finally know what good, comfortable 3D looks like.
Maybe that’s why The Clash of the Titans and Alice conversions weren’t received so well. These films weren’t shot or edited with 3D in mind. What you end up with is something that feels like an experiment, and what people seem resentful of is the fact that they have to pay extra money to be experimented on.
Well, no one’s going to hold a gun to your head and tell you to go to the movies. A less than satisfactory experience is a risk you run whenever you go to the movies. On the issue of the audience being experimented on, I think the audience is at the point where they’re able to comment not just on the fact that a film is in 3D but they’ll comment on the quality of the 3D. We now live in a world of social media, and word of mouth is now instantaneous. Whether or not a movie is in 2D or 3D people are going to express their opinions. They can’t be fooled by any kind of studio spin anymore. If the studios over-promise, the audience finds out fairly quickly, and they’ll probably choose another piece of entertainment.
That sounds very democratic.
If the 3D is of a very high quality, like what we saw in Avatar, it can send itself into the stratosphere in a way we’ve never seen. It’s not because it’s new, it’s because the people in the audience interact with each other in a deeper way.
Are detractors being a bit myopic about 3D technology and its potential application in other mediums?
Is 3D for everyone? Probably not. We know it’s for a large number of people but there are always going to be those who question it. When I was a kid, a group of musicians called The Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan Show. I remember my father said, “This isn’t music.” He got up and actually walked out of the house. It’s like people used to think that listening to Elvis Presley would lead to immorality and all rock and roll records should be burned, and later how CD’s would never catch on.
You’re saying that when a process matures it becomes more mainstream.
Every technology has been challenged. The same things being said about 3D now were said about digital cinema technology. Filmmakers used to say – and still do – that you‘ll never get a better picture from a digital source than you could from film, but nowadays when a big movie opens it’s the IMAX and digital screenings that sell out the fastest. People were worried that HD was going to destroy the film industry, that it would take away the magic and prosaic nature of film. Ultimately the audience will decide for themselves what they want.
*Even traditional editing isn’t always necessary. Feature films like Rope, Russian Ark, Speed Racer and Gaspar Noe’s latest, Enter the Void, all find interesting ways to experiment with the “cut”.
23 comments
I saw Avatar in 3-D and then in 2-D. I rapidly realized that the 3-D added nothing to the experience – the movie's awe-inspiring environments and stunning special effects advancements were just as effective in 2-D, and nothing was lost because the movie didn't use 3-D as a crutch where things just poked you in the eye. So either 3-D is a gimmick that pokes you in the eye, or it's unnecessary in that it adds depth that does nothing to enhance my sense of immersion in the world. I'm actually more immersed WITHOUT the 3-D, because there are no glasses on my face that constantly remind me that I'm watching a movie. In the end, I have yet to see a "killer app" that convinces me that 3-D is worth the money or my time. I'll keep avoiding it.
Iain – thank you so much for another great piece.
wtf? he compared 3D to the fucking beatles?
Ebert sez: "…Maxivision 48, which provides a picture of such startling clarity that it appears to be 3-D in the sense that the screen seems to open a transparent window on reality. Maxivision 48 would be cheaper than 3-D, would look dramatically better, would not require those silly glasses, would be backward-compatible for standard theaters, and would allow (filmakers like) Cameron to introduce the next step forward in movie projection, rather than returning to the obsolete past." I sez yes, yes, a million times yes.
The man selling a 3-D camera tells us it's the way of the future. The Toyota dealer also told me the brakes work.
3-D isn't a fad because it's popular again, but because it's been around since the '50's. It's already proven it is here to stay long before James Cameron started his PR tour. Audiences are not demanding anything and will go see whatever. The studios are pushing higher ticket prices and guys like this are pushing new $$technology$$.
Do you really think audiences will choose to not see movies because they're in 2-D?
Finally. It's great to see some balanced, intelligent coverage on this subject from people who know what they're talking about. Iain S may yet be the savior of CHUD.
Excellent work. Exactly the kind of critical thinking I used to enjoy on this site. Thanks for an alternative to the whining.
Good article. I am on the fence about 3D. Ultimately I think when used correctly as in Avatar, it does elevate the experience some, but not enough to warrant paying an extra 6-8 bucks more. Short term, I think this is nothing more than a cash grab tactic by the studios. Long term, I think there will be movies and other media that will be enhanced greatly due to 3D and be widely accepted as the way to view things. We're not there yet (not by a long shot) but it will be interesting where this technology will be able to take us.
They need to 3D up some of those old movies. Like that Casablanca. It needs 3D and CGI and shit. Sarcasm yo!
The comparisons of 3D to color/sound/etc. are all off-base and irrelevant, because those thing don't encumber the viewer with additional costs, peripherals, and the overall inconvenience that 3D is to the viewer.
It is a fad. There will be no 3D movies in five years.
When they finally get 3D right, people will realize it's theater, and the world will blow up.
I have to say, in some cases I theoretically enjoy 3D (it's "realness", thereness, etc)
Most of the time the experience is a pain- adding peripherals to the viewer does not seem like the way to go. I'd be much more for more mainstream 3D if the technology were there to do this in ACTUAL 3D, without glasses (through just the screens). Warping your vision through the use of specialized glasses is, in my (pretty humble and useless) opinion, not only too often a waste but frankly a lie/falsehood.
I view 3d more as a comparison, not of color/black and white or sound/silent, but CGI and practical. There are many films in which one can say, did CGI help that film, or was it better to use practical. In some instances, CGI has absolutely aided the films. Like any tool in a filmmaker's toolbox, it has to be used properly. ET, as was brought up the other day, looked perfect because of its practical limitations. With added cgi, it lessened the experience. So, in reference to a statement from the article, would Casablanca be aided by being CG, or Hurt Locker? No. Would Casablanca be aided by massive CG effects? Ehh.. (lol) But seriously. 3D doesn't need to be applied to every film, just like CGI doesn't. And its only a fad if filmmakers treat it that way. If Scorcese can shoot a film in 3d, you can bet, its because he believes he has a way to make that heighten the audiences enjoyment. Also, I am glad to see some balanced, rational (read: Not emotional or egotistically driven[hi devin]) conversation on the subject.
Just saw Avatar in 2D after seeing it in 3D when it came out. Wish I'd seen 2D and then 3D. The poor writing overshadowed the visuals to the point where I actually walked out furious, a first. Hundreds of millions on visuals, but 20 grand to a good writer could've fixed the script. If I'd seen it in 2D first, I would've been prepared, and probably would've been able to focus on the 3D visual experience better. Having said that, I've sort of tired of slapping 3D on everything, and only go to 3D screenings any more when I feel the movie really merits it. Most post-production conversions won't fit that criterion for me.
Though I think that Ebert didn't title his piece on the matter properly, I think that his stance in lots of ways agrees with the those of Climan. Where he differs is in a case where 3D would become widespread, used in every genre. And I happen to agree, 3D should not/will not become the shooting norm, it will be an option for certain genres. I'm curious to see that Maxvision 48 shit, though. And boo to all 3D conversion money grabs!
And no one mentions the debilitating migraines that the 3D process produces in the view.
The 3D process will stop being a fad when goes beyond slapping 2 images together. There is a reason why this comes and goes each decade and never sticks: It's kind of fun for 15 minutes then you get a headache. The eyes and brain just don't work like that.
If I want 3D I'll go outside.
To say that sound in film is a gimmick is not only hyperbole but flat out incorrect. Sound, much like the 3-D you defend, was available technology when the medium was invented. It was always possible, but they didn't bother with it because it was too costly and a hassle, and besides, people were paying to see moving images. This was when film was in its early stages. Cinema is *NOT* strictly a visual medium. You can have silent films, but you cannot simply remove sound from Bresson, tarkovsky, or even CHAPLIN (think Modern Times) and have the same film. It's incomplete, it's only a fraction. Furthermore, sound presents so many more emotional and artistic possibilities in cinema, much more than 3-D, which is actually only an expansion of visual aspects- much like COLOR film, which is also not strictly necessary. I would argue sound and visuals create new artistic and emotional information in the artform while color and 3-D, while both can be utilized, are not strictly necessary to the cinema.
In closing, I'd embrace any new technology that can enhance an artform, but 3-D doesn't seem all that special. It's designed very much to get people in the seats, like color was used, and misused, and the only examples we have right now are of course silly theme park ride type stuff.
Here's a bigger concern: how about filmmakers utilizing sound a little bit better? I mean in an artistic sense? Why don't filmmakers stop trying to strictly "tell stories" or paint pretty pictures with their camera and actually do something challenging and new with what cinema already has to offer? Because cinema already offers so much (and has) and with the invention of tiny digital HD cameras and home desktops, visions can become much more free. But only about 5% of film directors have ever really meaningfully pushed the boundaries of the medium anyway, so…
@hatts i'm saying that between the two, i'd choose sound as a gimmick over 3D. also, the tech for sound wasn't available, but it was being experimented with. as a component of cinema sound was always the more commercially viable pursuit and the implementation was far less complicated than 3D… although it still took over 30 years from the invention of the Kinetophone to get to The Jazz Singer… but is it more cinematic? the answer is no… and i'm sorry but your comment about "filmmakers [not] trying to strictly 'tell stories' or paint pretty pictures with their camera[s] and actually do something challenging with what cinema has to offer" is so vacuous it's threatening to suck the whole site in.
So, to get a nuanced viewpoint you asked a guy who sells 3d for a living? Ha ha ha.
I believe 3d is not a fad, if it is done well like in Avatar and not slapped on like in Alice in Wonderland. The technology is durable enough.
3D is going to be the realm of luxury cinema and stay there. I certainly hope it isn't in everything. Why do we need Sex and the City 2 in 3d? It should be reserved for films that warrant the upgrade in visuals. It will hurt cinema if we get to the point where theaters are expecting every movie to be in 3d and it will be the killing blow to the ailing independent film world. I'm willing to accept 3d into my life if it is filmed in 3d and there is a precedent of thoughtful construction that adds to the storytelling. Also, I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but the 3d transition is at 50 years+ and counting.
17 and 18 raise really important points. Many people are complaining of coming out of the cinema with a headache. A technology that does that has, I would say, a major problem.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.