Filmmakers Resist 3-D Boom

[CaptHayfever]

And rightfully so, I think.
Resistance Forms Against Hollywood’s 3-D Push - Yahoo! Finance

Tuesday August 3, 2010, 5:52 pm EDT
LOS ANGELES — A joke making the rounds online involves a pair of red and green glasses and some blurry letters that say, “If you can’t make it good, make it 3-D.”

The fans of flat film have a motto. But do they have a movement?

While Hollywood rushes dozens of 3-D movies to the screen — nearly 60 are planned in the next two years, including “Saw VII” and “Mars Needs Moms!” — a rebellion among some filmmakers and viewers has been complicating the industry’s jump into the third dimension.

It’s hard to measure the audience resistance — online complaints don’t mean much when crowds are paying the premium 3-D prices. But filmmakers are another matter, and their attitudes may tell whether Hollywood’s 3-D leap is about to hit a wall.

Several influential directors took surprisingly public potshots at the 3-D boom during the recent Comic-Con International pop culture convention in San Diego.

“When you put the glasses on, everything gets dim,” said J. J. Abrams, whose two-dimensional “Star Trek” earned $385 million at the worldwide box office for Paramount Pictures last year.

Joss Whedon, who was onstage with Mr. Abrams, said that as a viewer, “I’m totally into it. I love it.” But Mr. Whedon then said he flatly opposed a plan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to convert “The Cabin in the Woods,” a horror film he produced but that has not yet been released, into 3-D. “What we’re hoping to do,” Mr. Whedon said, “is to be the only horror movie coming out that is not in 3-D.”

A spokesman for MGM declined to discuss “The Cabin in the Woods.” But one person who was briefed on the situation — and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the studio was in the middle of a difficult financial restructuring — said conversion remained an option.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Marvel Entertainment said that studio had not decided on two or three dimensions for “Avengers,” a superhero film Mr. Whedon is directing.

With the enormous 3-D success of “Avatar,” directed by James Cameron, followed in short order by “Alice in Wonderland,” by Tim Burton, film marketing and distribution executives have been clamoring for more digitally equipped theaters to keep 3-D movies from crowding one another off the screen.

By year’s end, there will be more than 5,000 digital screens in the United States, or 12.5 percent of the roughly 40,000 total, easing a traffic jam that has caused 3-D hits like “Clash of the Titans,” from Warner Brothers, to bump into “How to Train Your Dragon,” from DreamWorks Animation, to the disadvantage of both.

Tickets for 3-D films carry a $3 to $5 premium, and industry executives roughly estimate that 3-D pictures average an extra 20 percent at the box office. Home sales for 3-D hits like “Avatar” and “Monsters vs. Aliens” have been strong, showing they can more than hold their own when not in 3-D.

A 3-D movie can be somewhat more costly than a 2-D equivalent because it may require more elaborate cameras and shooting techniques or an additional process in the already lengthy postproduction period for effects-heavy films. But the added costs are a blip when weighed against higher ticket sales.

Behind the scenes, however, filmmakers have begun to resist production executives eager for 3-D sales. For reasons both aesthetic and practical, some directors often do not want to convert a film to 3-D or go to the trouble and expense of shooting with 3-D cameras, which are still relatively untested on big movies with complex stunts and locations.

Filmmakers like Mr. Whedon and Mr. Abrams argue that 3-D technology does little to enhance a cinematic story, while adding a lot of bother. “It hasn’t changed anything, except it’s going to make it harder to shoot,” Mr. Whedon said at Comic-Con.

In much the same spirit, Christopher Nolan recently warded off suggestions that his film “Inception,” from Warner — still No. 1 at the box office — might be converted to 3-D.

On the other hand, Michael Bay, who is shooting “Transformers 3,” appears to have agreed that his film will be at least partly in 3-D after insisting for months that the technology was not quite ready for his brand of action.

“We’ve always said it’s all about balance,” said Greg Foster, the president and chairman of Imax Filmed Entertainment, which has long counseled that some films are better in 2-D, even on giant Imax screens. “The world is catching up to that approach.”

A willingness to shoot in 3-D could persuade studio committees to approve an expensive film. But the disdain of some filmmakers for 3-D — at least in connection with their current projects — was on full display in San Diego.

Jon Favreau, speaking at Comic-Con about his coming “Cowboys & Aliens” for DreamWorks and Universal, said the idea of doing the movie in 3-D had come up, but he was not interested. Contemporary 3-D requires a digital camera, and “Westerns should only be shot on film,” Mr. Favreau said. He added: “Use the money you save to see it twice.”

Stacey Snider, the DreamWorks chief executive, said Mr. Favreau and the studios involved had mutually agreed that 3-D was not right for the film. But, she added, a discussion about 3-D was inevitable.

“It’s naïve to think we wouldn’t be having it on any movie that has effects, action or scale,” Ms. Snider said.

Earlier at Comic-Con, Edgar Wright, the director of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” an action-filled comic-book extravaganza from Universal, similarly said that his film would arrive in two dimensions, at regular prices.

(People briefed on Universal’s approach to the film said 3-D had been considered very briefly. It was rejected, however, partly to avoid straining what promises to be a young audience with high ticket prices, partly because the already busy look of the movie might have become overwhelming in 3-D.)

The crowds cheered, as they had in an earlier Comic-Con briefing by Chris Pirrotta and other staff members of the fan site TheOneRing.net, who assured 300 listeners that a pair of planned “Hobbit” films will not be in 3-D, based on the site’s extensive reporting.

“Out of 450 people surveyed, 450 don’t want 3D for ‘The Hobbit,’ ” a later post on the Web site said.

But in Hollywood, an executive briefed on the matter — who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate negotiations surrounding a plan to have Peter Jackson direct the “Hobbit” films — said the dimensional status of the movie remained unresolved.

Asked by phone recently whether die-hard fans would tolerate a 3-D Middle Earth, Mr. Pirrotta said, “I do believe so, as long as there was the standard version as well.”

In his own family, he said, the funny glasses can be a deal-breaker.

“My wife can’t stand 3-D.”

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[PK FIRE!]

Well I hope that 3D dies out for awhile again, it doesn't work for me and I'm rather sick of asking my friends about the effects and how they affect the film every time I get out to the theater Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3 for example.

-You stupid dog.

[Metal Man]

I'm with Roger Ebert--no 3D, and no 3-quels, usually.

[Dizzy]

3-D hurts my eyes.

Whedon and Abrams are my new friends.

[Bomby]

I'm pretty well known in these parts as hostile toward 3D.

[Booyakasha]

Michael Curtiz didn't need no 3D to make 'Casablanca'.

[Vgfian]

Everything that has been said before this post is be my thoughts.

[Sim Kid]

I'm not like hostile towards 3D, but then again, 3D wouldn't have saved Avatar. What WOULD have saved Avatar was trying to make it seem more unique, rather than practically plagirising Atlantis, Fern Gully, and Dances with Wolves. (The only reason I could predict the story of "How to Train your Dragon" is because I saw a plot summary. If I can predict the story without reading a plot summary beforehand, within the first ten minutes, then you KNOW there's a cliche storm brewing.)


When the 3D version does anything to make it actually differ from the 2D version in variations other than the price of the ticket, then I'll pay the extra money for the ticket. And when they give a 3D thing my uncle with the glass eye can see....

[Panfan]

I liked Avatar, because I see it as the ultimate popcorn movie.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by PK FIRE!

Well I hope that 3D dies out for awhile again, it doesn't work for me and I'm rather sick of asking my friends about the effects and how they affect the film every time I get out to the theater Alice in Wonderland and Toy Story 3 for example.

-You stupid dog.

Well buddy, there's a lot of issues with how 3D is handled in the cinema. Out of some misguided idea that having images protrude from the screen makes the viewer feel "closer" to the film, the editing process always sees shots going shallower than they should. Films also try to take advantage of the increased disparity in 3D images close to the viewer, so often times they will attempt to juxtapose close-ups with with expansive background shots. While it give the close-ups better "pop", it actually destroys the 3D illusion of the background.

The real dealbreaker for me is how it can take apart a carefully framed shot by adding depth contrast - you can't appreciate how a dark silhouette frames against a bright background, because you can't see the whole image to judge. This is a huge contributor to why 3D is big news for immersive computer games and simulators, but a mixed bag for film.

Well-tuned color saturation and focal blurs are totally nixed by 3D. Ever wonder why Avatar is so vivid and brightly colorful? Because 3D clutters things. The people in it are bright blue because that makes them easy to follow against the complicated jungle backgrounds. While movement is the easiest identifier for contrast in film, it's become a virtual non-entity through the overdone camera pans and environments that were intended to showcase the 3D effect.

[PK FIRE!]

Let me see if I'm understanding properly here Ai, 3D is seen as a relitivly new tool to add a some more involvment to the film by use of perspective and depth. This requires a style of editing that isn't as deep in part because of the effect of the way the images in the forground are projecting tward the viewer while drawing their attention in contrast to the background. This can have the effect of damiging the illusion of depth that the background has on it own.

Sorry if I'm totaly off base there but for what ever reason I'm not sure if I'm comprehending your first paragraph fully the rest I can wrapp my mind around. Sad isn't it, aside from juxtapose I reconise all the terms your using but they just don't seem to want to gell for whatever reason.

Anyway I my first post was mostly me just venting a bit because like Sim Kid's uncle I have to make do with monoculare vision, the 3D trend is a real annoyence to me because it just doesn't work for me yet it seems to be popping up everywhere.

-You stupid dog.

[CaptHayfever]

The real kicker is that the "extra" depth actually doesn't add anything to the experience, because human vision already perceives depth naturally--even in 2D cinema--through perspective & binocular vision.

For Avatar, Cameron was smart enough to shoot the movie so that it was still watchable in 2D as well, but a lot of these other films aren't working that way.
Have you seen the teasers for Step Up 3-D? That shot of the dude dancing into the camera looks completely stupid; he's too close to the lens for us to be able to see his moves, & the crowd behind him looks like they were chroma-keyed in by a worse effect technician than your average local weatherman has.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Valigarmander]

I'M PAYING $3.00 EXTRA FOR THE ADDED EXPERIENCE

[Bomby]

Originally Posted by CaptHayfever

For Avatar, Cameron was smart enough to shoot the movie so that it was still watchable in 2D as well, but a lot of these other films aren't working that way.

The problem with Avatar in 3D is the shallow focus shots. If you let your eyes wander around the whole screen like me, looking at an out-of-focus part of the screen in the shallow focus shot causes massive pain. Not to mention that in order to achieve shallow focus, you use a longer lens which also has a "flattening" effect on the image. To use a flattening lens and then try to add depth to it is bound to fail.

Another problem comes with photo-sensitivity. While the overall screen is darkened with the 3D glasses on, the bright parts of the screen are even brighter. I found myself having to take off my glasses constantly on closeups of the main character in Avatar because his bright sweat was doing exorbitant damage to my eyes.

Then, there's the whole deal with hypersituated objects (objects at the edge of the screen). If you have objects floating out in the audience, and they make their way off screen (laterally), you might soon have half an object disappearing in midair over someone's head. This just looks silly.

I think the only type of 3D that might add to the experience, really, would be a 3D where everything recedes into the screen, instead of popping out of it. Everything would still need to be in deep focus, but it would be a more realistic illusion of depth than the current trendy 3D.

[CaptHayfever]

^I didn't even see it in 3-D; that's how I knew it worked in 2-D.
But wait, that bright stuff on his face was sweat? I thought it was freckles. Oh my gosh, the Na'vi have Gatorade sweat!

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Bomby]

No, I meant when he was human.

[The Spark]

The 3'Dness hurts my eyes after an extended period of time. Plus, it just seems unnecessary. Also, 6/10 times that I'm watching a movie, I'm lying down, which doesn't exactly work out very well. Maybe if I had some 3-D contacts or something, but even that would be terrible.

[Vgfian]

My eyes are weird, so 3D doesn't, and never has worked for me.

So obviously I try to avoid it.

[Robotazy]

^ this.

I usually fail to see 3D properly

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by PK FIRE!

Let me see if I'm understanding properly here Ai, 3D is seen as a relitivly new tool to add a some more involvment to the film by use of perspective and depth. This requires a style of editing that isn't as deep in part because of the effect of the way the images in the forground are projecting tward the viewer while drawing their attention in contrast to the background. This can have the effect of damiging the illusion of depth that the background has on it own.

Yeah, that about covers it. Here's a definition for that one you said you didn't recognize:

jux·ta·pose
to place close together or side by side, esp. for comparison or contrast.

Basically, they're using the background depth set apart from the foreground to make the foreground look like it pops out of the image more. The problem is the kind of focus they have to use to achieve this, as Bomby was saying: It makes the backgrounds look flat.


Most of the people here complaining about the depth problems have probably just experienced incompatibility with the whole "pop out" technique. Frankly, it's a crappy trick that, when it works, looks a lot like a pop-up picture book. It doesn't even work in a lot of theaters if you're seated to the side or at the very front. Sitting in the back is likely to make it easiest to focus on the image as a whole.

I'm a large proponent of 3D in games, though. Improved depth perception means better aiming and better understanding of speed. But gaming in 3D largely doesn't try to use the whole protruding-from-the-screen technique.