The 3-D controversy heats up

As readers of this blog may have noticed, I weighed in earlier this week on Jeffrey Katzenberg's eye-popping prediction that someday soon we will be watching all movies -- not just his DreamWorks animated films, not just Jim Cameron's long-awaited "Avatar," but presumably even films by Wes Anderson, Adam Sandler and Sidney Lumet -- in glorious 3-D. That might be great news for Katzenberg, who's trying to arm-wrestle theater owners into converting more screens to digital projection before "Monsters vs. Aliens" arrives next spring. And that might be great news for the big studio conglomerates, who'd love to have a new technology that allows them to boost ticket prices and promote something you can only experience -- at least for now -- in theaters, where attendance is inching downward. But do we really want to watch "Burn After Reading" or "Juno" or "The Kite Runner" with 3-D glasses on our head?

I've been getting some thoughtful response, both pro and con, to the post, which I plan to share in the coming days. I'd like to start with an especially impassioned reaction from one of my critics: Jim Miller, a partner in Stereo Pictures, a technology company specializing in 2-D to 3-D conversion of film and animation. For years, Miller was a top Warner Bros. executive who was largely responsible for the studio's deals with Arnon Milchan's Regency, Castle Rock and Village Road Show. It took me a little longer to realize that I knew Jim in a wholly different context -- we're both coaches in the same West L.A. Little League where our boys play baseball in the spring. If Jim were as persuasive on the baseball diamond as he was about 3-D, he might find a few more umpires' calls going his way.

He argues that 3-D is no longer a "House of Wax"-style gimmick, but a technology that offers an extraordinarily immersive audience experience. Here are a few excerpts of what he had to say:

"Patrick, 3-D movies are not our father's 3-D. This is not the gimmicky arrows coming at you head-on, although that can be fun too in the right film. This is simply replicating what you see out of your own eye. Every day. Look at the window. What do you see? 3-D. What today's 3-D is trying to do is mimic that experience for you. The only thing we do in 2-D is watch TV, film, read and look at paintings. Not all art. Just paintings. We can't fix reading or paintings. Not yet. But film and television. Absolutely.

"3-D definitely lends itself to great writing and great acting. Think of watching 'Juno' and feeling like you're sitting in Juno's living room, being part of the experience as they're talking about whether she should keep the baby or not. It gives you a whole new emotional reaction to the film. It's not going to change storytelling -- that stays the same. But it's going to enhance the emotional experience of the story.

"This isn't just going to happen in movie theaters. The technology is coming where you can sit in your living room in front of your TV -- yes, with the 3-D glasses -- and watch the Super Bowl and feel like you're in the game, right on the sidelines next to the first-down markers. Imagine having a 3-D-enabled portable device and being able to watch the Kentucky Derby, as if you were sitting on the rail, with the best seat in the house, watching the entire race on your iPhone.

"What about 'Titanic' or 'Lord of the Rings'? They'd be better pictures in 3-D. Why is James Cameron doing 'Avatar' in 3-D? Because he believes emotionally that 3-D is a better experience. Did Dolby not give us better sound? Did CGI not give us better tools to tell bigger and better stories? Do you really think Robert Downey Jr. would not have been better in a 3-D 'Iron Man?' Don't sell out the geniuses and visionaries that plan and see and imagine film in a different way."

I'm still not convinced, but Jim makes some important points. I'm going to give a 3-D skeptic a chance to respond, but I'd like to hear from some working filmmakers to see what they think could be gained or lost from movies entering the brave new 3-D world.

Photo: Jeffrey Katzenberg by Frazer Harrison / Getty Images

Comments

[Studly Semite]

I was keeping an open mind about 3D but Mr. Miller unconvinced me. With every new technology going back to color, storytelling in Hollywood has been perverted. Color, widescreen, Dolby stereo, and worse, CGI all had the effect of making the experience = technology and not the experience = story. We've all witnessed the complete unraveling of story telling since CGI became ubiquitous after the triumphs of T2 and Jurassic Park. If 3D becomes standard, I can only imagine the complete death of any story coherence ... or any purpose for seeing movies whatsoever. It will all be cheap Disneyland like thrills. Of course, that's what "innovators" like Cameron and Lucas want anyway -- since their storytelling abilities are subpar, they'd rather cinema be 100% experience-only so they can plow their budgets into bits and bytes rather than ideas. Please please let this fail otherwise movies will be merely theme park rides.

[Niran]

I am not that convinced, it might be a bit premature for natural movies. Its makes totally sense for CGI movies from Disney like "Chicken Little 3D", but for now thats about it. Coming from IBC I just watched the demo of "Journes to the middle of the earth" and I woudlnt like it. It is 3D, yes, but at cost of massive compromise to picture quality. For me this is still just a gimmick, super cool in "The Borg Invasion" at the Star Trek Experience in Vegas, but simply not working for natural feature film. Give it 5-10 more years, maybe then. Same for 3D displays.

Then again, if Hollywood looks for new technology, how about the digital 8K resolution demonstrated by NHK with 22.2 sound. THIS is amazing AND available. Digital 4K video can be shot, edited, compressed and streamed already pretty easily (at 24mbps) already, 8K might be way more tricky in shooting but thats pretty short term available.

greetings,
Niran

[Fred]

For 3-D to really be successful, in my opinion, they need to get rid of the glasses. I don't know if that is even possible, but until they do, I suspect that 3-D will remain a novelty.

[ddog]

im down for more 3d films if done in the right context but i do agree with you taht i cant imagine every film to be done in 3d some films do not merit that treatment and would detract from the film.

[Phil]

What about the portion of the population that doesn't have binocular or stereo vision? People with even mild strabismus, or significantly unequal vision acuity eye-to-eye, and many others who simply do not possess conventional depth perception will be unable to view 3D programming or content that relies on 3D glasses and stereo image projection. I see 100 movies per year in theaters and buy at least another 100 DVDs and Blu-Ray discs annually. Go to 3D exclusively, and Hollywood loses my revenue. Any move to widespread 3D in movies, if exclusive, will be catastrophic to film lovers who have monocular or dual monocular vision, for either physical or neurological reasons. The population share lacking conventional depth perception and 3D vision is larger than Katzenberg thinks. 3D technologies that do not require stereoscopic projection, nor glasses for viewing, might be embraceable by monocular or dual-monocular audiences, but it's too early for theaters or film-makers to invest in that technical infrastructure.

[Roger Mossburger]

James Cameron, et al, are kidding themselves that 3D is going to become a commercial reality as long as the only way to view the effect is via the stupid glasses.

[Philbert]

People are much too dismissive of 3D. Hondo, Dial M for Murder and Miss Sadie Thompson showed 3D could be used in a restrained and effective manner.

I also get tired of hearing how most 3D movies are gimmicky and crap. I can use the same argument for most 2D films. The failure with past 3D attempts was not the lack of a quality product, it was the lack of a viable projection process.

Digital 3D has the ability to eliminate the shoddy past presentations of the 3D experience. Of course that also depends on the theatre's ability to project the process as well. At a recent showing of "Meet the Robinsons" I attended the projectionist failed to increase the projection light to compensate for the 20% light reduction through the polarized glasses. When I finally tracked down the manager in the 20 screen theatre and told him the projection was too dark he tersely said to me "It's a 3D movie, it's suppose to be dark" and walked away. So, unfortunately, a fly still may wind up in the soup.

[Jeff]

The problem with 3D is that for a long time, it will be just a gimmick to many, if not most, filmmakers (and by that I mean directors, producers, studios, etc). Too many will misuse and overuse it. We've had high-quality -- make that high technical quality -- audio for years and it's still treated as a gimmick by some. 3D will be the same and we'll have to endure things that are suddenly in our face for no other reason than that they can be put there to startle us. Of course some filmmakers will use 3D wisely and effectively, like some do now with audio. But just as some misuse audio and still like to startle audiences with crystal-clear, high-fidelity, multichannel, digital, Dolby sudden noises years after gaining the technical capability, there will be those who won't resist the urge to slam a door in our face, show us the point of view of someone being punched in the eye, etc, etc. And let's not even think about what porn will be like, given the artistic restraint they're known for.

[Dan]

This 25 - 34 male who shells out upwards of $200 at theaters a year finds himself profoundly unconvinced. Basically, this all boils down to "We can do it, so we should." Also, that "fix" thing puts a gnat in my ear; what's "broken" about painting or print? It's not a good analogy and I just personally don't find it compelling. I'd be less likely to watch "Death Race" or "Hellboy II" if I had to A) pay $20 to do so and B) had to wear special glasses.

Also, I'd like to know why older films have to be made 3D, when they were not shot or designed to be so.

[Peter Skye]

Quadraphonic sound. Smell-O-Vision.