First of all, thanks to Roger Ebert for joining my warnings to the industry about their approach to 3D in his recent posting for Newsweek.
But while I agree to a certain extent with some of Ebert’s specific concerns, I do not agree with his overall premise that 3D is being over-used and I do not agree with many of his nine points, which I will tackle individually below.
Let me start by reiterating my concern that unless 3D is created with a consistent “wow” factor impact that comes out of the movie and TV screens and into your lap, audiences are going to stop paying the $3 to $5 extra for a movie ticket (where are you paying a $7 premium, Roger?), and are not going to spend thousands of dollars on new 3D TVs and Blu-ray players.
And I will also disagree with Ebert that 3D, when done correctly, could not enhance the experience of nearly any movie, including his beloved “Lawrence of Arabia.”
With that as my starting point, here are my responses to each of Ebert’s bullet points:
1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon” or “I wish this were 3D?”
> If the best entertainment experience is to be left to the imagination, then why did we invent movies and TV, Roger? Are you saying we should have stopped with books and radio dramas that leave visualization to the mind’s eye?
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?
> Many people felt the stage versions of everything from the Marx Bros.’ “Cocoanuts” to “West Side Story” were just fine in the live theater. Should Hollywood not make adaptations of any stage production?
“Gone with the Wind” worked just fine as a book — should Hollywood not adapt books either?
And what would be wrong with well-produced 3D versions of “Fargo,” “Precious” and “Casablanca?” Can’t you imagine the wood chipper scene in 3D?
3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background.
> This can be, and is being done in 3D as well. No reason to be any more of a distraction than real life is a distraction for you in 3D.
4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
>The technology will improve and eventually not even require glasses. In the meantime, it’s such a small percentage of people who are bothered, are you suggesting that there should be no theme park rides that make some people queasy, and that production of Pokemon should have ceased when a few people got seizures? How about the people who are bothered by noisy movies? C”mon, using this as a reason not to make movies in 3D is reaching too far.
5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
>Yes, some systems are better than others and all will improve over time.
6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
>So what? It’s a business, Roger. If more people are paying higher premiums to see 3D versions of movies, why shouldn’t theater owners upgrade their systems that are essentially the same mechanical dinosaurs that were invented a century ago?
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.
> No one is forcing anyone to buy a movie theater ticket. If you feel it’s too expensive (once again, where is the ticket price $7.50 higher in 3D than in 2D?), then go see the 2D version, or don’t go at all. If enough people stop paying, theaters will drop the price. So far, most people seem to be quite happy to pay a premium to get a premium experience.
8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
>Despite your concerns about varying focus points and a little darker image, there really is no downside to adding 3D to a movie, if done correctly. There is no image that should look any worse than 2D. You think there are no scenes in “The Hurt Locker” that could not be even slightly enhanced by 3D? You think that by drawing you in a little closer visually to the scenes in “Up in the Air” where George Clooney is on one side of the table dismissing the poor soul on the other side, that might not create an even bigger impact on you?
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
>Yes, did you ever hear the expression that necessity is the mother of invention? You would prefer Hollywood never have created sound, color, or stereo? And what would your beloved “Lawrence of Arabia” have looked like without widescreen?
— by Scott Hettrick
Sorry, Scott, but I agree with Roger.
I think that 3-D in the 2010s will go the same way as 3-D in the 1950s. It will be popular for a year or two or three, then it will slowly disappear.
Frankly, aside from the fact that it was visually amazing, I thought that AVATAR was a bore.
And, after the first five minutes or so, I found the 3-D to not only be distracting, but also annoying.
A GOOD film doesn’t need 3-D and, after the gimmick wears thin, it’s certainly not going to help a mediocre one.
In my experience, everyone knows at least one person (I know two) that get pretty stellar headaches after wearing those sticky soda dunked glasses for over an hour.
And I’m sorry, but paying 5 dollars to see a movie that only looks good when I keep my head perfectly straight, where only 2-3 scenes benefit from the extra dimension at all is a rip-off. The answer shouldn’t be “then don’t go at all”. Enjoy sitting by yourself while all of your friends are out on a Friday night.
Dear Scott,
I am happy to see your refutation. You may have noticed that I was quoted by Roger. I did write that the 3-D can be dim because it can lose so much light because of its physics, but I did go on to say that other ystems, such as the RealD XL, Imax digital, and the Oculus3D system (my latest venture) are decently bright.
His article is part of a reaction that is occuring — see last week’s LA Times. As long as people think 3-D is fun, they will go. Bad content and bad projection can spoil the experience but that’s true for the 2D cinema too.
I was at CES and sat through press conference after press conference of companies “wowing” us with 3D. All I kept thinking was, “Who is asking for 3D TV?!” Later, in my panel, I asked the room. One guy out of 40 or 50 people raised his hand. I agree with Ebert about Lawrence of Arabia. 3D has its place, and I don’t think there are many people arguing for no 3D at all. That said, it’s not necessary – or even appealing – for most genres of film. I am not someone who gets a headache from watching 3D (usually), but I am someone who generally finds the experience distracting and frustrating. A good HD TV provides the most “realistic” viewing experience I need… and it doesn’t require any special glasses or viewing angle to enjoy.
I have really enjoyed some of the recent 3-D experiences (Avatar, Grammy’s MJ tribute), and think consumers are always interested in the next technology. HD in sports comes to mind. Soccer never looked so amazing as it does in HD.
Will I be one of the techies who rushes out to upgrade my nearly 2-year old LCD flat-screen to 3D compatible? Probably not. But I do look forward to attending select films and events that are filmed with 3D in mind, viewed on a nice big screen in a dark room for optimal viewing experience. I’ll pay a few extra bucks for that.
Regarding the headaches, I do not yet know anyone who gets a headache from the 3D. But those friends of mine who get nauseous on rollar coasters can meet me at the exit. Because I’m not missing a new coaster because of them.
I like 3D for the cinema but at home it makes no sense at all. 3D looks cool at the movies because the picture is big and impressive.
3D on a 50″ TV looks dumb and I will not support it.
I agree with both of your positions. Progress has to happen, and it’s only through innovation that we get there. Think of the long path that multichannel sound had to take before becoming firmly implanted in film sound. There were many bad technical options before Dolby, DTS, and SDDS finally came up with formats that worked. Then it took lots of experimenting with ways to mix surround sound until the sound design and mixing community learned how to best make use of the 5.1 and 7.1 channel available to them. Many of these soundtracks are simply glorious these days. 3D picture will go through the same process. I agree with Roger that what’s available today both from technical and artistic points of view doesn’t in fact add much to the director’s story-telling palette. In fact 3D happens to bother me to a point that I choose to go to the 2D presentations and spend my $5 surcharge on popcorn (high margin for the theater owner…). Let’s all agree that more work is needed, and that for now it’s a fun development.
Incidentally, the Ultra High Def presentations I have seen at NAB, with 4000 and 8000 pixel horizontal resolution look way better, and way more lifelike than any 3D effect. I get more involved in the bigger and sharper picture that these UHD processes offer, and they don’t need glasses. Maybe that’s where we should all go spin our wheels for a while?…
Dear Scott,
To reply to your first point:
3D is not an enhancement of 2D in this respect, because the illusion of 3D is completely there in 2D. It has nothing to do with our imaginations. It’s how our minds work with our eyes. Nobody, watching 2D, ever thinks of it as lacking depth, because the camera, by recording perspective, supplies it. Perspective had to be discovered by painters in the Middle Ages. It is built in to the motion picture camera. We do not consciously notice the depth in 2D. Often we do in 3D. We should not.
Best,
Roger
One of the big points of “Imax” was to maximize the user experience or to use a cliche.. “immerse” the audiences in the experience. Why should we not evolve to the next logical step along this path… that of using stereoscopic 3D, now that the technology is affordable.
What needs to change is only the way Cinematographers think. Easier said than done I realize, but it will happen with the upcoming generation of movie-makers (can’t really call them film makers now in this day and age can we?)
I like Scott’s reasoning above, and believe that 3D can add to almost any genre of movie, action included, provided the movie-maker does not use established 2D cinematic templates and is willing to re-learn.
The other sad thing is the “NEW” way to make 3D movies. yes.. 2D to 3D conversions.
Copy pasting (I apologize for this as it looks like spam) my answer on another forum:
I saw the demo reel for a 2D to 3D conversion service
http://bsatlabs.com/showreels.html
. Based from that work, I have to say.. un-impressive. The start has a couple with a flat unconverted background. the next scene has a “wall papered” Chair on the balcony. Followup scenes show severe cardboarding and a Photoshop layered look at the village wedding. The last scene of the cobbled stones is nothing more than a gradient depth map that shows perspective skew.
Here’s another service provider: http://www.stereoscopicfx.com/examples.html
. You can see from the poster ad for the conversion service on the anaglyph image, how the palm tree is nothing more than an “extrusion” and the bush/hedge on the lower left of the scene is a cookie-cut extrusion. Is this the sate of the art that is the “NEW” way to make 3D movies?
About close to a year ago, I had criticized the Big-boys in conversion and questioned their work.
http://www.slideshare.net/clydd/2dto3dconvertedmovies
… Now in hind sight…come to think of it..at least they cared to a great extent!
I write for P3 Update magazine, both its print edition and a blog. This is an abbreviated version of a recent blog entry addressing the debate of whether 3D is a fad or here to stay.
__________________________________________________________
3D movies have come and gone several times since their debut in the 1920’s. Why is this cycle different? Why am I confident that this time 3D is going to stick around for good? Demand has pretty much always been there with consumers, but up until now 3D technology’s flaws have been a major obstacle to long-term acceptance in the market place.
Digital technology has finally licked major technical flaws like ghosting and R/L image registration. Now we’re entering the kind of learning curve/adjustment that the industry went through following the introduction of those other technologies. But the other ingredient is the kind of “killer app” that makes 3D the undisputed preferred format for consumers.
Back in the 1920’s, synchronized sound had been in use for 3 years prior to “The Jazz Singer.” Dolby’s optical surround sound technology was launched in 1975, two years before “Star Wars” put it on the map. 3D needs something similar.
Many believe that “Avatar” is that killer app, but I think it’s really in home applications – and specifically 3D/stereoscopic video games and the 3D broadcast of sporting events. There’s no doubt that gamers are avid early adopters and that we’ll be seeing a lot more stereoscopic 3D games in homes in the next 12 months than movies. Having seen demos of 3D stereoscopic games I know first-hand how much that added dimension makes the games more compelling. Gamers will buy 3D systems because it makes their play that much better and experience.
Sports is the other killer app for 3D. I’m far from avid as a sports fan. Most of the time, I can take it or leave it – and usually leave it. But I can easily watch sports in 3D for hours, even sporting events that under other circumstances I would never give a second thought to. As sports and games fuel demand for 3D in the home, audience hunger for other 3D content will grow and we’ll see more and more quality 3D in theatres.
Sure, there is a learning curve involved to use 3D as an effective storytelling tool. Over the next few years, you’ll see a number of movies featuring literal “in your face” 3D effects simply for the sake of showing off 3D. But just as filmmakers learned to use color and multichannel sound as part of their arsenal of storytelling tools, so too will they learn to use 3D as a way to draw audiences into the worlds they create. As “Avatar” producer Jon Landau has frequently said, “it’s about creating a window into a world, and not a world coming out of a window.”
Thanks, Scott, for the comments. There is at least one quality dramatic film shot in 3D: Alfred Hitchcock’s Dial M For Murder. It is shot almost entirely in a small London apartment, has no special effects, and sticks very much to the drama of the story. I have seen it in 3D several times, and it is a revelation to what can happen with 3D. (You can get an idea of what it is like by watching it in 2D, the film is the same.) Would I like to see Casablanca or Lawrence of Arabia in a similar 3D: you bet!